Challenges with non-descriptive compliance labeling of end-stage renal disease patients in accessibility for renal transplantation

Non-descriptive and convenient labels are uninformative and unfairly project blame onto patients. The language clinicians use in the Electronic Medical Record, research, and clinical settings shapes biases and subsequent behaviors of all providers involved in the enterprise of transplantation. Terminology such as and serve as a reason for waitlist inactivation and limit access to life-saving transplantation. These labels fail to capture all the circumstances surrounding a patient's inability to follow their care regimen, trivialize social determinants of health variables, and bring unsubstantiated subjectivity into decisions regarding organ allocation. Furthermore, insufficient Medicare coverage has forced patients to ration or stop taking medication, leading to allograft failure and their subsequent diagnosis of . We argue that perpetuating non-descriptive language adds little substantive information, increases subjectivity to the organ allocation process, and plays a major role in reduced access to transplantation. For patients with existing barriers to care, such as racial/ethnic minorities, these effects may be even more drastic. Transplant committees must ensure thorough documentation to correctly encapsulate the entirety of a patient's position and give voice to an already vulnerable population.