Cureus · 2025
Improving Eye Donation Discussions in a Hospice Care Setting: A Quality Improvement Initiative.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
MacInnes Euan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: There is a critical shortage of corneal tissue in the United Kingdom (UK), limiting access to life-changing treatment for individuals with visual impairment. There are many potential donors who are admitted to a hospice setting. At our hospice, eye donation discussions do occur with some patients, but not all. This quality improvement project (QIP) aimed to evaluate and increase the frequency and quality of eye donation discussions happening in the hospice setting.
METHODS: A baseline audit was conducted over one month to assess the frequency, timing, and documentation of eye donation discussions among hospice admissions. An educational intervention comprising four teaching sessions, capturing 21 inpatient unit staff members, was implemented. A post-intervention re-audit was conducted over the following month.
RESULTS: In the baseline audit, 14 patients were admitted; seven were eligible for eye donation, and only three (43%) were asked about donation. Only one discussion occurred at the time of admission, and the reason for exclusion was documented for just two of the seven ineligible patients. Post-intervention, 25 patients were admitted, 21 were eligible, and 11 (52%) were asked about donation. Discussion at the time of admission increased from 33% to 64% and documentation of ineligibility improved from 29% to 100%.
CONCLUSIONS: The educational intervention improved staff engagement and documentation related to eye donation, with a modest increase in discussion frequency, but a substantial increase in exclusion documentation. However, cultural and timing barriers persist. Continued education and integration of donation discussions into standard workflows are recommended for sustained improvement.
METHODS: A baseline audit was conducted over one month to assess the frequency, timing, and documentation of eye donation discussions among hospice admissions. An educational intervention comprising four teaching sessions, capturing 21 inpatient unit staff members, was implemented. A post-intervention re-audit was conducted over the following month.
RESULTS: In the baseline audit, 14 patients were admitted; seven were eligible for eye donation, and only three (43%) were asked about donation. Only one discussion occurred at the time of admission, and the reason for exclusion was documented for just two of the seven ineligible patients. Post-intervention, 25 patients were admitted, 21 were eligible, and 11 (52%) were asked about donation. Discussion at the time of admission increased from 33% to 64% and documentation of ineligibility improved from 29% to 100%.
CONCLUSIONS: The educational intervention improved staff engagement and documentation related to eye donation, with a modest increase in discussion frequency, but a substantial increase in exclusion documentation. However, cultural and timing barriers persist. Continued education and integration of donation discussions into standard workflows are recommended for sustained improvement.