Pieter Hoste

Recommendations for further improvement of the deceased organ donation process in Belgium

Belgium has achieved high deceased organ donation rates but according to the medical record data in the Donor Action database, deceased potential donors are still missed along the pathway. Between 2010 and 2014, 12.9 ± 3.3% of the potential donors after brain death (DBD) and 24.6 ± 1.8% of the potential donors after circulatory (DCD) death were not identified. Conversion rates of 41.7 ± 2.1% for DBD and 7.9 ± 0.9% for DCD indicate room for further improvement. We identify and discuss different issues in the monitoring of donation activities, practices and outcomes; donor pool; legislation on deceased organ donation; registration; financial reimbursement; educational and training programs; donor detection and practice clinical guidance. The overall aim of this position paper, elaborated by a Belgian expert panel, is to provide recommendations for further improvement of the deceased organ donation process up to organ procurement in Belgium.

Adherence to guidelines for the management of donors after brain death

Purpose: Guideline adherence for the management of a donor after brain death (DBD) is largely unknown. This study aimed to perform an importance‐performance analysis of prioritized key interventions (KIs) by linking guideline adherence rates to expert consensus ratings for the management of a DBD. Materials and methods: This observational, cross‐sectional multicenter study was performed in 21 Belgian ICUs. A retrospective review of patient records of adult utilized DBDs between 2013 and 2016 used 67 KIs to describe adherence to guidelines. Results: A total of 296 patients were included. Thirty‐five of 67 KIs had a high level of adherence congruent to a high expert panel rating of importance. Nineteen of 67 KIs had a low level of adherence in spite of a high level of importance according to expert consensus. However, inadequate documentation proved an important issue, hampering true guideline adherence assessment. Adherence ranged between 3 and 100% for single KI items and on average, patients received 72% of the integrated expert panel recommended care set. Conclusions: Guideline adherence to an expert panel predefined care set in DBD donor management proved moderate leaving substantial room for improvement. An importance‐performance analysis can be used to improve implementation and documentation of guidelines.

Amyand’s Hernia

Case A 64-year-old man consulted the emergency department with intermittent abdominal pain during the past 10 days. Clinical examination demonstrated tenderness in the right iliac fossa towards the inguinal region. Blood testing showed no signs of inflammation. Ultrasound (US) examination of the abdomen revealed a direct inguinal hernia protruding anteromedially and inferiorly to the inferior epigastric vessels. A small tubular structure compatible with the appendix was present within the hernia sac (Figure 1, arrow). The appendix diameter was at the upper normal range, and the surrounding fat was hyperechoic (asterisk). Consequently, the patient was preliminary diagnosed with Amyand’s hernia with signs of inflammation. Complementary computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen confirmed Amyand’s hernia (arrows, Figure 2). Whether the inflammation was caused by some degree of incarceration or as a result of acute appendicitis remained unclear. There were no signs of complications such as perforation or abscess.

Development of key interventions and quality indicators for the management of an adult potential donor after brain death: a RAND modified Delphi approach

BackgroundA substantial degree of variability in practices exists amongst donor hospitals regarding the donor detection, determination of brain death, application of donor management techniques or achievement of donor management goals. A possible strategy to standardize the donation process and to optimize outcomes could lie in the implementation of a care pathway. The aim of the study was to identify and select a set of relevant key interventions and quality indicators in order to develop a specific care pathway for donation after brain death and to rigorously evaluate its impact.MethodsA RAND modified three-round Delphi approach was used to build consensus within a single country about potential key interventions and quality indicators identified in existing guidelines, review articles, process flow diagrams and the results of the Organ Donation European Quality System (ODEQUS) project. Comments and additional key interventions and quality indicators, identified in the first round, were evaluated in the following rounds and a subsequent physical meeting. The study was conducted over a 4-month time period in 2016.ResultsA multidisciplinary panel of 18 Belgian experts with different relevant backgrounds completed the three Delphi rounds. Out of a total of 80 key interventions assessed throughout the Delphi process, 65 were considered to contribute to the quality of care for the management of a potential donor after brain death; 11 out of 12 quality indicators were validated for relevance and feasibility. Detection of all potential donors after brain death in the intensive care unit and documentation of cause of no donation were rated as the most important quality indicators.ConclusionsUsing a RAND modified Delphi approach, consensus was reached for a set of 65 key interventions and 11 quality indicators for the management of a potential donor after brain death. This set is considered to be applicable in quality improvement programs for the care of potential donors after brain death, while taking into account each country’s legislation and regulations regarding organ donation and transplantation.

Friday: Fish Day

A 78-year-old man presented with diffuse abdominal pain, localized peritonitis and raised inflammatory markers. CT revealed an mesentery abcess with a linear high density structure in continuity with the adjacent small bowel lumen. Laparoscopy showed a perforation by a fish bone. Gastrointestinal tract perforation by foreign body ingestion is rare complication (1%). There are some risk factors and prefered locations of perforation. Time interval between ingestion and complication can vary extremely.