Cell and Tissue Banking

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 537–546 | Cite as

Evaluation of the experiences of family members whose deceased relative donated tissues at the NHSBT dedicated donation facility in Speke, Liverpool

  • Tracy Long-SutehallEmail author
  • Emma Winstanley
  • Anthony J. Clarkson
  • Magi Sque


Donation of human tissue for transplant and research has historically been facilitated within the hospital mortuary. In 2006 NHSBT Tissue Services opened the Dedicated Donation Facility [DDF], the first facility in the UK dedicated to the donation of tissues under strictly controlled conditions. Nine family members who had agreed and experienced the transfer of their deceased relative to the DDF for tissue donation participated in a service evaluation applying qualitative data collection methods and framework analysis. The evaluation aimed to: understand the decision-making process of family members who agreed to their deceased relative being moved to the DDR for tissue donation; identify any concerns that family members had; gather the views of family members regarding the ‘service’ provided to them by NHSBT Tissue Services. Family members were unaware of the possibility of tissue donation. The process of reasoning behind both agreeing to tissue donation and movement of the deceased to the DDF by family members was fundamentally, ‘the benefit to others’ that tissue donation would bring, and fulfilling the wishes of the deceased [when known]. Family decision making was facilitated by: (i) a positive rapport with the requester, (ii) satisfaction with the information provided to the family about what would happen, and (iii) trust in that what was being said would happen. Family members were satisfied with the service provided to them by Tissue Services and confident in agreeing to the transfer of their deceased relative to the dedicated facility for tissue donation.


Tissue donation Family members experiences Dedicated facility Service evaluation 



We would like to acknowledge and thank the participants for their central contribution to this evaluation; individuals who so generously gave up their time to meet with, or talk to, the lead evaluator over the duration of the project. We would like to personally thank: Jackie Dawber who orchestrated all aspects of initial and continuing administrative contact with family members.


  1. Beard J, Ireland L, Davis N, Barr J (2002) Tissue donation: what does it mean to families? Progress in Transplantation. 12(1):42–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bray K (2007) Liverpool tissue services dedicated donor facility: a pioneering approach to the donation process. Cell Tissue Banking 8:307–327. doi: 10.1007/s10561-007-9050-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Directive (2004)/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the council on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, available at: Accessed 5 November 2008
  4. Doering JJ (1996) Families experiences in consenting to eye donation of a recently deceased relative. Heart Lung 25:72–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gain P, Thuret G, Pugniet JL, Rizzi P et al (2002) Obtaining cornea donation consent by telephone. Transplantation 73(6):926–929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Geissler A, Paoli K, Maitrejean C, Durand-Gasselin J (2004) Rates of potential and actual cornea donation in a general hospital: impact of exhaustive death screening and surrogate phone consent. Transpl Proc 36:2894–2895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kent B (2007) Tissue donation and the attitudes of health care professionals. In: Sque M, Payne S (eds) Organ and tissue donation: an evidence base for practice. Open University Press, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  8. Muraine M, Menguy E, Martin J, Sabatier P, Watt L, Brasseur G (2000) The interview with the donor’s family before postmortem cornea procurement. Cornea 19(1):12–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N (2000) Qualitative research in health care: analysing qualitative data. Br Med J 320:114–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. RCPath, Tissue services RW/Reports/RCPath working group report (2004) Procedures for tissue retrieval after deathGoogle Scholar
  11. Ritchie J, Spencer L (1994) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess R (eds) Analysing qualitative data. Routledge, London, pp 173–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Siminoff LA, Traino HM, Gordon N (2010) Determinants of family consent to tissue donation. J Trauma 69(4):956–963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sque M (2007) A dissonant loss: the bereavement of donor families. In: Sque M, Payne S (eds) Organ and tissue donation: an evidence base for practice. Open University, Maidenhead, pp 59–81Google Scholar
  14. Sque M, Long T, Payne S (2005) Organ donation: key factors influencing families decision-making. Transpl Proc 37(2):543–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sque M, Long T, Payne S, Roche W, Speck P (2008) The UK postmortem organ retention crisis: a qualitative study of its impact on parents. J R Soc Med 101:71–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Williams KA, White M, Badenoch P, Wedding T, Alfrich S, Sawyer MA et al (1990) Donor cornea procurement: six-year review of the role of the eye bank in South Australia. Australian New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology 18(1):77–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tracy Long-Sutehall
    • 1
    Email author
  • Emma Winstanley
    • 2
  • Anthony J. Clarkson
    • 3
  • Magi Sque
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.National Referral CentreNHS Blood and Transplant, Tissue ServicesSpeke, LiverpoolUK
  3. 3.Organ DonationNHS Blood and TransplantBristolUK
  4. 4.The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust, Centre for Health and Social Care Improvement, School of Health and WellbeingUniversity of WolverhamptonWolverhamptonUK

Personalised recommendations