Abstract
Aims
To examine the impact of telephone consent introduced in 2007 on the eye donation rate and to report the changing trend and potential for improvement in eye donation in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Methods
Relevant data were retrospectively collected from the local eye retrieval database for two separate years, namely, 2006 (before the introduction of telephone consent) and 2010. All the hospitals within Newcastle were included in the study.
Results
From 2006 to 2010, there was a 3.5-fold increase in eye donation from 32 (of 2479 deaths) to 111 donors per year (of 2213 deaths) in Newcastle (P<0.001). Consent was obtained via face-to-face interview in all 32 (100%) and 59 (53.2%) donors in 2006 and 2010, respectively. Introduction of telephone consent increased the donation rate by an additional 88.1% (from 59 to 111 donors) in 2010 (P<0.001). In addition, there was a significant increase in medical notes of the deceased being reviewed from 27.1% (671/2479 cases) in 2006 to 62.4% (1382/2213 cases) in 2010 (P<0.001). Acceptance rate of eye donation was 45.7% (32/70) in 2006 and 49.6% (111/224) in 2010 (P=0.575). Acceptance rate was positively associated with registration on organ donor register (P<0.001) and telephone consent (P<0.001), but not with age (P=0.883), gender (P=0.234), or location of death (P=0.984) of the potential donors.
Conclusion
There has been a substantial improvement in eye donation rate in Newcastle over the recent years. Introduction of telephone consent and high-quality eye donation service serve as effective measures for increasing eye donation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Sundmacher R, Reinhard T . Meeting the demand for quality and safety checked corneal transplants. The role of corneal banks and health care organizations in Germany. Ophthalmologe 2001; 98: 277–284.
Gaum L, Reynolds I, Jones MN, Clarkson AJ, Gillan HL, Kaye SB . Tissue and corneal donation and transplantation in the UK. Br J Anaesth 2012; 108: i43–i47.
Lawlor M, Kerridge I . Anything but the eyes: culture, identity, and the selective refusal of corneal donation. Transplantation 2011; 92: 1188–1190.
Lawlor M, Kerridge I, Ankeny R, Dobbins TA, Billson F . Specific unwillingness to donate eyes: the impact of disfigurement, knowledge and procurement on corneal donation. Am J Transplant 2010; 10: 657–663.
Rithalia A, McDaid C, Suekarran S, Myers L, Sowden A . Impact of presumed consent for organ donation on donation rates: a systematic review. BMJ 2009; 338: a3162.
Lawlor M, Dobbins T, Thomas KA, Billson F . Consent for corneal donation: the effect of age of the deceased, registered intent and which family member is asked about donation. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90: 1383–1385.
Sheehy E, Conrad SL, Brigham LE, Luskin R, Weber P, Eakin M et al. Estimating the number of potential organ donors in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 667–674.
Siminoff LA, Gordon N, Hewlett J, Arnold RM . Factors influencing families’ consent for donation for solid organs for transplantation. JAMA 2001; 286: 71–77.
Tandon R, Verma K, Vanathi M, Pandey RM, Vajpayee RB . Factors affecting eye donation from post-mortem cases in a tertiary care hospital. Cornea 2004; 23: 597–601.
Gimbel RW, Strosberg MA, Lehrman SE, Gefenas E, Taft F . Presumed consent and other predictors of cadaveric organ donation in Europe. Prog Transplant 2003; 13: 17–23.
McGlade D, Rae G, McClenahan C, Pierscionek B . Regional and temporal variations in organ donation across the UK (secondary analyses of databases). BMJ Open 2011; 1: e000055.
Geissler A, Sion S, Toulisse A, Maitrejean C, Paoli K, Durand-Gasselin J . [Cornea donation: improving hospital coordination]. J Fr Ophtalmol 2005; 28: 252–256.
Muraine M, Toubeau D, Menguy E, Brasseur G . Analysing the various obstacles to cornea post-mortem procurement. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86: 864–868.
RodrÃguez-Villar C, Ruiz-Jaramillo MC, Paredes D, Ruiz A, Vilardell J, Manyalich M . Telephone consent in tissue donation: effectiveness and efficiency in postmortem tissue generation. Transplant Proc 2007; 39: 2072–2075.
Gain P, Thuret G, Loup Pugniet J, Rizzi P, Acquart S, Le Petit JC et al. Obtaining cornea donation consent by telephone. Transplantation 2002; 73: 926–929.
The Royal College of Ophthalmologists (2008). Standards for the retrieval of human ocular tissue used in transplantation, research and training. Available at http://www.rcophth.ac.uk/page.asp?section=451§ionTitle=Clinical+Guidelines (accessed 11 January 2015).
Muraine M, Menguy E, Martin J, Sabatier P, Watt L, Brasseur G . The interview with the donor’s family before postmortem cornea procurement. Cornea 2000; 19: 12–16.
Rodrigue JR, Cornell DL, Howard RJ . Organ donation decision: comparison of donor and nondonor families. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 190–198.
Webb G, Phillips N, Reddiford S, Neuberger J . Factors affecting the decision to grant consent for organ donation: a survey of adults in England. Transplantation 2015; 99: 1396–1402.
Marck CH, Neate SL, Skinner MR, Dwyer BM, Hickey BB, D'Costa R et al. Factors relating to consent for organ donation: prospective data on potential organ donors. Intern Med J 2015; 45: 40–47.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ting, D., Potts, J., Jones, M. et al. Impact of telephone consent and potential for eye donation in the UK: the Newcastle Eye Centre study. Eye 30, 342–348 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.216
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.216
