Physical examination (PE) of donors is essential to identify potential risks to the safety and efficacy of donated organs and tissues and is mandatory in the EU. However, no detailed guidance is available as to how PE should be performed. Health authorities (HA) and health professionals (HP) in member states of the European Committee on Organ Transplantation of the Council of Europe (CD-P-TO) and observer countries completed surveys relating to the regulatory requirements for PE and the professional practice of PE in their countries for organ and tissue donors. The HA survey addressed regulatory aspects, and the HP survey addressed professional practices, training, and respondents' opinions on the value of PE. These surveys revealed significant inter-country variation in the regulatory approach to PE and the performance of PE by professionals. Most respondents opined that PE was important and yielded valuable information in identifying contraindications to donation. There is no consensus at a regulatory or professional level as to how PE should be performed on organ and tissue donors. There is a requirement for agreed best practice guidelines in this area.

Background. Organ, tissue, and cell donation and transplantation legislation and policies vary substantially worldwide, as do performance outcomes in various jurisdictions. Our objective was to create expert, consensus guidance that links evidence and ethical concepts to legislative and policy reform for tissue and cell donation and transplantation systems. Methods. We identified topic areas and recommendations through consensus, using nominal group technique. The proposed framework was informed by narrative literature reviews and vetted by the project’s scientific committee. The framework was presented publicly at a hybrid virtual and in-person meeting in October 2021 in Montréal, Canada, where feedback provided by the broader Forum participants was incorporated into the final manuscript. Results. This report has 13 recommendations regarding critical aspects affecting the donation and use of human tissues and cells that need to be addressed internationally to protect donors and recipients. They address measures to foster self-sufficiency, ensure the respect of robust ethical principles, guarantee the quality and safety of tissues and cells for human use, and encourage the development of safe and effective innovative therapeutic options in not-for-profit settings. Conclusions. The implementation of these recommendations, in total or in part, by legislators and governments would benefit tissue transplantation programs by ensuring access to safe, effective, and ethical tissue- and cell-based therapies for all patients in need.

Haematopoietic progenitor cell donation from bone marrow and mobilised peripheral blood obtained from related and unrelated donors is an established procedure. The donation process in general has proven to be safe, but in rare cases severe and even fatal events have been reported. The present study aimed at providing a description of the current situation of donor protection measures in Council of Europe member states. A specific questionnaire was developed to compile information on donation activities, graft sources, legal frameworks, donor protection measures, collection of donor outcome data, and long-term follow-up of paediatric and adult related and unrelated donors. The outcome of this survey served as a basis for elaborating the Recommendation CM/Rec(2020)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on establishing harmonised measures for the protection of haematopoietic progenitor cell donors.

Discrepancies in donation and transplantation by sex and gender have previously been reported. However, whether such differences are invariably the inevitable, unintended outcome of a legitimate process has yet to be determined. The European Committee on Organ Transplantation of the Council of Europe (CD-P-TO) is the committee that actively promotes the development of ethical, quality and safety standards in the field of transplantation in Europe. Whilst the ultimate objective is to shed light on the processes underlying potential gender inequities in transplantation, our initial goal was to represent the distribution by sex among organ donors and recipients in the CD-P-TO Member States and observer countries. Our survey confirms previous evidence that, in most countries, men represent the prevalent source of deceased donors (63.3% in 64 countries: 60.7% and 71.9% for donation after brain and circulatory death, respectively). In contrast, women represent the leading source of organs recovered from living kidney and liver donors (61.1% and 51.2% in 55 and 32 countries, respectively). Across countries, most recovered organs are transplanted into men (65% in 57 countries). These observations may be explained, at least in part, by the higher burden of certain diseases in men, childbearing related immune sensitization in women, and donor-recipient size mismatch. Future research should establish whether gender-related socially-constructed roles and socioeconomic status may play a detrimental role reducing the access of women to transplantation.

Impact of training on end-of-life care (EOLC) and the deceased donation process in critical care physicians' perceptions and attitudes was analysed. A survey on attitudes and perceptions of deceased donation as part of the EOLC process was delivered to 535 physicians working in critical care before and after completion of a online training programme (2015-17). After training, more participants agreed that nursing staff should be involved in the end-of-life decision process (P < 0.001) and that relatives should not be responsible for medical decisions (P < 0.001). Postcourse, more participants considered 'withdrawal/withholding' as similar actions (P < 0.001); deemed appropriate the use of pre-emptive sedation in all patients undergoing life support treatment adequacy (LSTA;P < 0.001); and were favourable to approaching family about donation upon LSTA agreement, as well as admitting them in the intensive care unit (P < 0.001) to allow the possibility of donation. Education increased the number of participants prone to initiate measures to preserve the organs for donation before the declaration of death in patients undergoing LSTA (P < 0.001). Training increased number of positive terms selected by participants to describe donation after brain and circulatory death. Training programmes may be useful to improve physicians' perception and attitude about including donation as part of the patient's EOLC.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) has become an accepted practice in many countries and remains a focus of intense interest in the transplant community. The present study is aimed at providing a description of the current situation of DCD in European countries. Specific questionnaires were developed to compile information on DCD practices, activities and post-transplant outcomes. Thirty-five countries completed the survey. DCD is practiced in 18 countries: eight have both controlled DCD (cDCD) and uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) programs, 4 only cDCD and 6 only uDCD. All these countries have legally binding and/or nonbinding texts to regulate the practice of DCD. The no-touch period ranges from 5 to 30 min. There are variations in ante and post mortem interventions used for the practice of cDCD. During 2008-2016, the highest DCD activity was described in the United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Data on post-transplant outcomes of patients who receive DCD donor kidneys show better results with grafts obtained from cDCD versus uDCD donors. In conclusion, DCD is becoming increasingly accepted and performed in Europe, importantly contributing to the number of organs available and providing acceptable post-transplantation outcomes.

Introduction Donation after circulatory death (DCD) has become an accepted practice in many countries and remains a focus of intense interest in the transplant community due to its potential to increase the donor pool. In 2011, the European Committee on Organ Transplantation (CD-P-TO) of the Council of Europe (COE) published a study on the situation of DCD in Europe. Since then, the scene has enormously changed, with more countries initiating or developing DCD programmes and with practices evolving as new evidence becomes available. The aim of the present study is to provide an updated description of the current situation of DCD in COE member states. Material and Methods The CD-P-TO designed and agreed upon a specific questionnaire. Each representative collected the requested information from official sources. Data was returned to the CD-P-TO Secretariat for subsequent quality control and analysis. Results Thirty-one countries, (66%) completed the survey. Sixteen countries declared not having developed any DCD activity, because of legislative obstacles (31%), no regulatory framework (50%), lack of technical expertise (44%) and/or insufficient organizational capabilities (25%). Of these countries, 5 stated interest in developing a controlled DCD (cDCD) programme and 4 in developing both cDCD and uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) programmes, while 7 were not planning to develop any DCD activity. DCD was practiced in 15 countries: 7 had both cDCD and uDCD programmes, 3 only cDCD and 5 only uDCD. During 2008-2016, the activity progressively increased, with the highest activity being described in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium (mainly controlled), France and Spain (mainly uncontrolled). The number of DCD organs transplanted increased from 1039 in 2008 to 3440 in 2016. In total, 12,115 DCD organs were transplanted over the study period (8,972 kidneys, 1,943 livers, 782 lungs, 404 pancreata and 14 hearts). For cDCD procedures, 6 had specific provisions in national legislation, but all 10 countries declared having national guidance. In 7 countries the pre-mortem administration of substances is allowed practiced, whereas pre-mortem cannulation is allowed in 3 countries but only practiced in 2. Normothermic abdominal perfusion for in situ preservation of organs is allowed in 8 countries but only practiced in 5.Finally, updated data on post-transplant outcomes of patients who received DCD organs show better outcomes for grafts obtained from cDCD versus uDCD donors. Conclusion DCD is becoming increasingly accepted and performed in Europe, importantly contributing to the number of organs available and providing acceptable post-transplantation outcomes. This study will allow countries to benchmark their programmes and clinical practices and foster discussion on the ethical and technical obstacles to this type of donation in a European common framework of understanding.

The limitation of life-sustaining treatment is common practice in critical care units, and organ donation after circulatory death has come to be included as an option within this care plan. Lack of knowledge and misunderstandings can raise barriers between health-care providers (e.g., confusion about professional roles, lack of collaboration, doubts about the legality of the process, and not respecting patients' wishes in the decision-making process). The aim of the present study was to determine the knowledge and attitudes of intensive care physicians and nurses before and after a multidisciplinary online training program. A cross-sectional study was performed, and comparisons between the two groups were made using a χ2 -test for categorical data and unpaired t-test or Mann-Whitney rank sum test for continuous data according to its distribution. Training benefited both professional categories, helping nurses to be more open-minded and willing to collaborate, while physicians became more aware of nurses' presence and the need to collaborate with them.

The attitudes and knowledge of nursing personnel regarding organ and tissue donation can influence the decision to donate. This study aimed to determine these two factors among nurses at a district hospital in Barcelona, Spain. A survey was carried out using a 35 item questionnaire. Results were subjected to descriptive and comparative statistical analyses using bivariate and multivariate analyses to examine the relation between demographic data and attitudes toward donation. The completion rate was 68.2%, with 98.6% of those responding stating that they were in favor of organ donation. The respondents were unsure as to whether the criteria for inclusion in transplant waiting lists were appropriate (57.5%), whereas 72.2% agreed that brain death is equivalent to death. The bivariate analysis revealed a significant association between a positive attitude toward donation and working on permanent night shift no religious beliefs. Attitudes toward donation among nurses were generally positive; a negative attitude, although attitudes towards donation among the nurses participating in the study were generally positive, it should be pointed out that when a negative attitude does exist this affects significant aspects such as belief in the diagnosis of brain death or the criteria for inclusion on the waiting list, amongst others, which reflects that specific training in donation focused on nurses continues to be needed.