341.5: The Experiences of Organ and Tissue Donation Coordinators Participating in a Team Cohesion and Communication Workshop: An Exploratory Descriptive Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Organ and Tissue Donation Coordinators (OTDCs) work in a highly specific and complex environment that can lead to challenging work-related issues. To address these issues, organ donation organizations need to take preventive measures to improve OTDCs work-related wellbeing. Therefore, this study aimed to (1) investigate OTDC perceptions about compassion fatigue, burnout, and resilience, as it relates to their daily work, and (2) explore the experience of OTDCs following participation in an experiential-based relationship-centered care workshop. Methods: An exploratory qualitative descriptive study was undertaken using semi-structured interviews conducted with a convenience sample of OTDCs in a Canadian organ donation organization. Results: Seven OTDCs participated in this study following their participation in a relationship-centered care workshop. The relationship-centered care approach promotes team cohesion, support, and collegiality, as well as the personhood of patients, families, and staff. The work done with OTDCs focused primarily on strengthening communication and approaches with donor families and optimizing team cohesion. There was consensus among OTDCs that they work in a high-pressure and demanding environment and that the constant exposure to work-related stress and grief resulted in most of them experiencing signs and symptoms of burnout and compassion fatigue throughout their career. Participants stated that the emotional toll of work-related stressors and difficult cases led to the use of a variety of coping strategies to protect and support their well-being. Regarding the workshop, most participants reported improvements in the sense of inclusiveness and cohesiveness among their team after the intervention. The expertise and experience of the facilitators, role playing, group interaction, and feedback were all perceived as valuable components of the intervention. OTDCs also mentioned that future interventions should have additional focus on the donation work and how to become a better communicator. Lastly, participants recognized that more strategies to help mitigate work-related stressors and to prevent burnout and compassion fatigue are needed, and that management and institutions should lead the development of such interventions. Conclusion: Our results described how the mental health and work-related wellbeing of OTDCs are affected daily by their stressful and emotionally challenging role. The workshop and its components were perceived as being valuable and OTDCs reported positive impacts on team cohesiveness and communication skills following the intervention. This work highlights the need for future studies focused on developing effective interventions to mitigate work-related issues among OTDCs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".