Opportunities for Improving the Transplant Assessment and Education Process in British Columbia: Patient and Health Care Provider Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:There are several steps patients and their health care providers must navigate to access kidney transplantation in British Columbia (BC).Objective:We explored perceptions and experiences with the pretransplant process across BC to determine where process improvements can be made to enhance access to transplantation.Design:Anonymous surveys were sent online and via post to health care providers (including nephrologists, registered nurses, and coordinators) and patients across BC.Setting:Kidney care clinics, transplant regional clinics, and provincial transplant centers in BC.Measurements:Surveys included Likert scale questions on the current pretransplant process and transplant education available in BC. The health provider survey focused on understanding the pretransplant process, knowledge, roles, and communication while the patient survey focused on patient education and experience of the pretransplant processes.Results:A total of 100 health care providers and 146 patients responded. Seventy-six percent of health care providers understood their role and responsibility in the pretransplant process, while only 47% understood others’ roles in the process. Fifty-nine percent of health care respondents felt adequately supported by the provincial donor and transplant teams. Seventy-one percent of registered nurses and 92% of nephrologists understood transplant eligibility. About 68% and 77% of nurses and nephrologists, respectively, reported having enough knowledge to discuss living donation with patients. Fifty percent of patients had received transplant education, of which 60% had a good grasp of the pretransplant clinical processes. Sixty-three percent felt their respective kidney teams had provided enough advice and tools to support them in finding a living donor. Fifty percent of patients reported feeling up to date with their status in the evaluation process.Limitations:This analysis was conducted between December 2021 and June 2022 and may need to account for practice changes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses are from a selection of health care providers, thus acknowledging a risk of selection bias. Furthermore, we are not able to verify patients who reported receiving formal transplant education from their health care providers.Conclusions:Exploring these themes suggests communication with regional clinics and transplant centers can be improved. In addition, patient and staff education can benefit from education on kidney transplantation and the pretransplant clinical processes. Our findings provide opportunities to develop strategies to actively address modifiable barriers in a patient’s kidney transplantation journey.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".