ArticleCureus2025
Improving Eye Donation Discussions in a Hospice Care Setting: A Quality Improvement Initiative.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsIn 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%.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.