New Advertising Campaign Focuses on Medical Center's Life-Saving Mission Source

[sherri]

I wanted to get other donors' and potential donors' opinions about this new commercial from the University of Maryland Transplant Center. Watch it and tell me what you think. It appears in a campaign to encourage more living donors the University hospital is now touting this new surgery.

New Advertising Campaign Focuses on Medical Center's Life-Saving Mission



http://www.umm.edu/transplant/ads/index.htm

(you may have to copy and paste)


1. As a potential donor would the opportunity to not have a scar encourage, deter or not make any difference in your decision to donate?

2. If you have donated, how do you view your scar? Is it a badge of honor, something that bothers you about your body, or you don't think about it one way or another?

3. Had you been offered an opportunity to have a scarless surgery would you have chosen that?

4. What could transplant centers do in order to educate the public about living donation?


Thanks,

Sherri

[Orchidlady]

Thanks, Sherri.

I have to say, I am not really fond of it. They make it sound like the surgery and donation is no big deal physically or mentally - no different than getting that pesky little mole removed that has been bothering you! Someone who went into it with that kind of attitude would be quite surprised at the truth!

In response to your questions:

1. The size or presence of a scar would not have made a difference in my decisions.
2. To tell the truth, the two port holes I can barely find anymore and the main incision has faded to the point that I almost forget it is there.
3. Not necessarily - I would choose based on safety, experience and complications involved in that particular type of surgery
4. Have living donors involved in the process as either educators, guides or mentors to potential donors.  Seems like very few do that.


Thanks for sharing!

[WilliamLFreeman]

Sherri & Orchidlady,
Orchid Lady wrote almost exactly what I want to write.  For the 4 answers, using Orchid Lady's answers as the template:
1. [same]
2. I do not care at all about my 3 port holes plus a questions mark scar around my umbilicus (for hand assisted surgery).  What, body beautiful at 72 y.o. plus a few days ruined by scars? Who would I be kidding?
3. I chose "based on safety, experience and complications involved in that particular type of surgery."
4. Were "living donors involved in the process as either educators, guides or mentors to potential donors"?

It is possible, even likely, that UMD had vetted this ad using response/focus groups.  The results were probably in terms of a positive response to possibly donating *shortly after viewing the ad*.  I doubt the vetting or assessment checked longer-term results.  Three longer-term questions:  1] What percent of those in the response/focus groups actually started the process, by at least contacting the Center?  2] Of those, what percentage were *non-directed donors* (because most people in the general population do not have a family member, or know of someone, needing/waiting for kidney transplant)?  3] [like Orchidlady], What percentage  actually started the donation process, were negatively surprised & turned off to donating, thus felt *more* negative about donation as a result or even worse talked negatively to others?

[sherri]

Bill and OL,

Thanks for taking the time to view and respond. I saw the ad and my initial reaction was similar to both of you. Occasionally I feel I need to check  my donor sensitivity radar is calibrated because I tend to be biased. I do try to be fair when approaching donors and potential donors and try appreciate everyone's point of view. I found this ad insulting to donors. The entire focus was on the disease (not even the recipient as a patient) and the donor was portrayed as a treatment and not a person. I am a student at University of Maryland School of Nursing and I will try to inquire more about how this ad was put together if possible.

I am actually working on my scholarly paper for school (last semester woo hoo!) and I will discuss how to create a better model to support and encourage potential donors and those who have donated. Surgeons have concentrated on less invasive surgeries to reduce length of hospital stay, quicker recovery time, scarless surgeries, paired exchanges and daisy chains, non directed and non related donors, and expanded criteria in order to increase the availability of organs. There have even been tax incentives to remove barriers to donate. Yet since 2004 there has been a decline in living donation.  I believe the medical model needs to stop focusing on making the surgery "easier" but rather focus on educational support, long term donor centered care, respect, gratitude and acknowledgement.  Marginalization, simplification and minimizing only depreciates the gift. Patients want to trust the system; they want to have a relationship with their provider and know that they are in safe hands. And if something does go wrong there will be someone to accept responsibility. Let's try a model with strong and meaningful independent donor advocate, nurse navigators and clinical nurse leaders.

Not sure if we will increase the number of donors significantly but at least it may be an improvement regarding safety and patient centered care.

Thanks for your input.

Sherri

[jatopa]

Thanks for posting this ad.  I responded negatively to the ad.  I thought it really trivialized living donation.  I don't even  see my port hole scars now.   This is just another form of laparoscopic surgery, so I don't see it as a great improvement.
I had a very positive experience with the donation process, with recovery, and I am absolutely thrilled with my brother's good health now that he has my kidney.  I am primed to respond positively to the donation process, but this ad did not do it for me.
Also, Sherri, good luck with your research and you career path.
J