Abstract
Objectives To evaluate the knowledge of corneal donation and the new opt-out system among junior doctors in the East Midlands, UK.
Methods This was a cross-sectional study performed during June-September 2020. A 26-item questionnaire-based survey was disseminated to all 340 junior doctors working in the East Midlands, UK. Relevant data, including participants background, knowledge of corneal donation and the new opt-out system introduced in England, were analysed.
Results A total of 143 responses were received (response rate=42.1%). Nineteen (13.3%) junior doctors had previously discussed about corneal donation. The majority (100, 69.9%) of them perceived the importance of obtaining consent for corneal donation as junior doctors, but only 24 (16.8%) felt comfortable in discussing corneal donation. The knowledge of corneal donation was low, with a mean correct response rate of 33.3+/-20.8%. Only 28 (19.6%) doctors were aware of the 24-hour death-to-enucleation time limit. The majority (116, 81.1%) of doctors would consider certifying a death on the ward quicker if they knew it could potentially compromise the quality of corneas. Most (103, 72%) doctors were aware of the new opt-out system but only 56 (39.2%) doctors correctly stated that donation can only proceed with family consent.
Conclusion Junior doctors working at the frontline services serve as valuable members in contributing to the process of obtaining consent for organ/tissue donation. Our study highlights the lack of knowledge of corneal donation and the opt-out system amongst junior doctors in the UK. Targeted postgraduate training during the induction process may potentially enhance the donation rate.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
DSJT acknowledges support from the Medical Research Council / Fight for Sight Clinical Research Fellowship (MR/T001674/1), and the Fight for Sight / John Lee, Royal College of Ophthalmologists Primer Fellowship (24CO4).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethic Committee at the University of Nottingham, UK, prior to the conduct of study (Reference: FMHS 45-0720).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding / support: D.S.J.T. acknowledges support from the Medical Research Council / Fight for Sight Clinical Research Fellowship (MR/T001674/1), and the Fight for Sight / John Lee, Royal College of Ophthalmologists Primer Fellowship (24CO4).
Conflict of interest: None
Collaborators: Rachel Byrne, Eleanor Green, Laura Sandland-Taylor, Laura Weir, Shahid Mohammed, Basal Atwi, Yara Hreish, Zara Faizi, Natalie Mok, Thomas Poundall, Sahana Bala, Sudha Bhagwansingh Hayne, Mohamad Ali Mortada
Data Availability
All the data have been provided in this manuscript.
