Perceptions held by healthcare professionals concerning organ donation after circulatory death in an Australian intensive care unit without a local thoracic transplant service: A descriptive exploratory study.


Journal

Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses
ISSN: 1036-7314
Titre abrégé: Aust Crit Care
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9207852

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 2022
Historique:
received: 21 12 2020
revised: 22 06 2021
accepted: 23 06 2021
pubmed: 3 8 2021
medline: 22 6 2022
entrez: 2 8 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Organ donation rates continue to be low in Australia compared with demand. Donation after circulatory death (DCD) has been an important strategy to increase donation rates, facilitated by advances in cardiopulmonary support in intensive care units (ICUs). However, DCD may harbour greater logistical challenges and unfavourable perceptions amongst some ICU healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to evaluate and understand DCD perceptions at an Australian tertiary hospital. This descriptive exploratory study was conducted at an Australian tertiary hospital. Participants were recruited voluntarily for interview via email and word-of-mouth through the hospital's ICU network. The study used a mixed-methods approach; five close-ended questions were included in the form of Likert scales followed by a semistructured interview with open-ended questions designed to understand participants' perceptions of DCD. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed. Sixteen participants were interviewed including eight intensive care doctors, four donation specialist nursing coordinators (DSNCs), and four bedside nurses. Likert responses demonstrated clinicians' support for both DCD and donation after brain death (DBD). Thematic analysis of the transcripts yielded three overarching themes including 'Contextual and environmental influences on DCD decision-making', 'Personal difficulties faced by clinicians in DCD decision-making', and 'Family influences on DCD decision-making'. Significant geographical separation between donation and organ retrieval teams, incurring significant resource utilisation, impacted the donation team's decision-making around DCD, as did a perceived disruption of ICU care to facilitate donation especially for cases where successful DCD was identified to be unlikely. Overall, DCD was as acceptable to participants as DBD. However, the geographical separation of this centre meant that logistical barriers potentially impacted the DCD process. Open lines of communication with transplant centres, local resourcing, and a culture of education, experience, and leadership may facilitate the DCD programs where distant retrieval is commonplace.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Organ donation rates continue to be low in Australia compared with demand. Donation after circulatory death (DCD) has been an important strategy to increase donation rates, facilitated by advances in cardiopulmonary support in intensive care units (ICUs). However, DCD may harbour greater logistical challenges and unfavourable perceptions amongst some ICU healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to evaluate and understand DCD perceptions at an Australian tertiary hospital.
METHODS
This descriptive exploratory study was conducted at an Australian tertiary hospital. Participants were recruited voluntarily for interview via email and word-of-mouth through the hospital's ICU network. The study used a mixed-methods approach; five close-ended questions were included in the form of Likert scales followed by a semistructured interview with open-ended questions designed to understand participants' perceptions of DCD. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed.
RESULTS
Sixteen participants were interviewed including eight intensive care doctors, four donation specialist nursing coordinators (DSNCs), and four bedside nurses. Likert responses demonstrated clinicians' support for both DCD and donation after brain death (DBD). Thematic analysis of the transcripts yielded three overarching themes including 'Contextual and environmental influences on DCD decision-making', 'Personal difficulties faced by clinicians in DCD decision-making', and 'Family influences on DCD decision-making'. Significant geographical separation between donation and organ retrieval teams, incurring significant resource utilisation, impacted the donation team's decision-making around DCD, as did a perceived disruption of ICU care to facilitate donation especially for cases where successful DCD was identified to be unlikely.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, DCD was as acceptable to participants as DBD. However, the geographical separation of this centre meant that logistical barriers potentially impacted the DCD process. Open lines of communication with transplant centres, local resourcing, and a culture of education, experience, and leadership may facilitate the DCD programs where distant retrieval is commonplace.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34334277
pii: S1036-7314(21)00107-7
doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2021.06.013
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

430-437

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Luke Milross (L)

Department of Intensive Care, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.

Thomas O'Donnell (T)

Department of Intensive Care, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: Thomasgodonnell@gmail.com.

Tracey Bucknall (T)

Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia; The Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

David Pilcher (D)

Department of Intensive Care, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; The Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; DonateLife Victoria, DonateLife, Melbourne.

Alexis Poole (A)

DonateLife South Australia, DonateLife, Adelaide, Australia; School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

Benjamin Reddi (B)

School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia; Intensive Care Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.

Joshua Ihle (J)

Department of Intensive Care, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; DonateLife Victoria, DonateLife, Melbourne.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH