Search

Aim Since there is no consensus about how to perform the predonation psychosocial evaluation of living kidney donor candidates, this is conducted differently in German transplant centers. Thus, the goal of the study was to learn more about how psychosocial evaluations are currently conducted in German transplant centers. Methods The psychosocial evaluators of the 38 transplant centers performing kidney transplantations in 2015 were contacted and asked to participate in an anonymous online survey. Results Psychosocial evaluators from 28 (75%) transplant centers responded. In only 30 (4%) of the evaluations contraindications for donation were reported. In most centers the psychosocial evaluation was performed after the completion of all medical tests. The evaluations were realized after only short waiting periods and were reported to be time-consuming. Financial reimbursement was mainly realized by internal cost allocation. In most centers the evaluators used semi-structured interviews. Still, there was limited consensus about structure and content of the psychosocial evaluation. Conclusion Standardization of the psychosocial evaluation process could be helpful to enable comparisons between transplant centers and to achieve equal opportunities for the potential living kidney donors and recipients., Competing Interests: Interessenkonflikt: Die Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Due to the shortage of cadaveric organs, living kidney donation has begun to serve as the most crucial organ pool. Transplant centers have a legitimate interest in expanding the pool of donors. A psychosocial evaluation is established in transplantation centers to prevent donors from possible emotional harm in the aftermath of donation. We explored if the resilience questionnaire is an appropriate measure of the mental stability. To standardize procedures of psychosocial evaluation and to optimize donor recruitment, we present our evaluation protocol and analyze the causes of exclusion from donation., Method: In a naturalistic design, we compared resilience and quality of life in eligible and excluded donors at the time point of donation. Potential living kidney donors (N = 161) participated in the obligatory psychosomatic evaluation. Quality of life (World Health Organization Quality of Life, WHOQOL-Bref) and resilience (Resilience Scale, RS-12) were measured. Three months after nephrectomy donors quality of life was screened in a follow-up., Results: In the evaluation interview donors were classified as eligible (n = 142) or excluded (n = 12). Nonrelated donors (n = 3) were excluded from donation significantly more often (p < .011). Eligible donors (M = 78.42, SD = 10.19) had higher values for resilience than excluded donors (M = 72.7, SD = 8.18, p < .04), who showed values comparable to the norm. In all domains of quality of life, eligible donors had significantly higher values than healthy normals (p < .001). After donation health-related quality of life decreased, but was comparable to the norm. A regression analysis showed that resilience was a significant predictor for all dimensions of quality of life before donation (R(2) = 10.2-24.6 %). Post-donation quality of life was significantly correlated with pre-donation resilience scores (p < .05)., Conclusions: The resilience score predicts high mental quality of life before and after donation. Therefor it can be implemented as a self-rating instrument to further objectify donor's mental stability. Despite the stressful life event of donation, donor candidates presented high resilience and high levels of quality of life. Therefor our findings support health care providers` intentions to improve living donation. In the group of excluded donors nonrelated persons were overrepresented. Guidelines for the admission of nonrelated donors are currently unclear and need to be optimized.