How clinicians discuss patients' donor registrations of consent and presumed consent in donor conversations in an opt-out system: a qualitative embedded multiple-case study.
Communication
End-of-life decision-making
Intensive care
Medical ethics
Opt-out consent
Organ donation
Professional-family relations
Qualitative research
Journal
Critical care (London, England)
ISSN: 1466-609X
Titre abrégé: Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9801902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 07 2023
28 07 2023
Historique:
received:
26
05
2023
accepted:
13
07
2023
medline:
31
7
2023
pubmed:
29
7
2023
entrez:
28
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Netherlands introduced an opt-out donor system in 2020. While the default in (presumed) consent cases is donation, family involvement adds a crucial layer of influence when applying this default in clinical practice. We explored how clinicians discuss patients' donor registrations of (presumed) consent in donor conversations in the first years of the opt-out system. A qualitative embedded multiple-case study in eight Dutch hospitals. We performed a thematic analysis based on audio recordings and direct observations of donor conversations (n = 15, 7 consent and 8 presumed consent) and interviews with the clinicians involved (n = 16). Clinicians' personal considerations, their prior experiences with the family and contextual factors in the clinicians' profession defined their points of departure for the conversations. Four routes to discuss patients' donor registrations were constructed. In the Consent route (A), clinicians followed patients' explicit donation wishes. With presumed consent, increased uncertainty in interpreting the donation wish appeared and prompted clinicians to refer to "the law" as a conversation starter and verify patients' wishes multiple times with the family. In the Presumed consent route (B), clinicians followed the law intending to effectuate donation, which was more easily achieved when families recognised and agreed with the registration. In the Consensus route (C), clinicians provided families some participation in decision-making, while in the Family consent route (D), families were given full decisional capacity to pursue optimal grief processing. Donor conversations in an opt-out system are a complex interplay between seemingly straightforward donor registrations and clinician-family interactions. When clinicians are left with concerns regarding patients' consent or families' coping, families are given a larger role in the decision. A strict uniform application of the opt-out system is unfeasible. We suggest incorporating the four previously described routes in clinical training, stimulating discussions across cases, and encouraging public conversations about donation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The Netherlands introduced an opt-out donor system in 2020. While the default in (presumed) consent cases is donation, family involvement adds a crucial layer of influence when applying this default in clinical practice. We explored how clinicians discuss patients' donor registrations of (presumed) consent in donor conversations in the first years of the opt-out system.
METHODS
A qualitative embedded multiple-case study in eight Dutch hospitals. We performed a thematic analysis based on audio recordings and direct observations of donor conversations (n = 15, 7 consent and 8 presumed consent) and interviews with the clinicians involved (n = 16).
RESULTS
Clinicians' personal considerations, their prior experiences with the family and contextual factors in the clinicians' profession defined their points of departure for the conversations. Four routes to discuss patients' donor registrations were constructed. In the Consent route (A), clinicians followed patients' explicit donation wishes. With presumed consent, increased uncertainty in interpreting the donation wish appeared and prompted clinicians to refer to "the law" as a conversation starter and verify patients' wishes multiple times with the family. In the Presumed consent route (B), clinicians followed the law intending to effectuate donation, which was more easily achieved when families recognised and agreed with the registration. In the Consensus route (C), clinicians provided families some participation in decision-making, while in the Family consent route (D), families were given full decisional capacity to pursue optimal grief processing.
CONCLUSION
Donor conversations in an opt-out system are a complex interplay between seemingly straightforward donor registrations and clinician-family interactions. When clinicians are left with concerns regarding patients' consent or families' coping, families are given a larger role in the decision. A strict uniform application of the opt-out system is unfeasible. We suggest incorporating the four previously described routes in clinical training, stimulating discussions across cases, and encouraging public conversations about donation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37507800
doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04581-9
pii: 10.1186/s13054-023-04581-9
pmc: PMC10375668
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
299Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2014 Dec;20(6):662-7
pubmed: 25203352
Med Health Care Philos. 2021 Sep;24(3):329-340
pubmed: 33733389
Lancet. 2001 Aug 4;358(9279):397-400
pubmed: 11502338
Science. 2003 Nov 21;302(5649):1338-9
pubmed: 14631022
BMJ Qual Saf. 2021 Jan 5;:
pubmed: 33402381
BMC Med Ethics. 2016 Jul 11;17(1):38
pubmed: 27401351
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012 Jun;27(6):2533-46
pubmed: 22121233
J Med Ethics. 2022 May 18;:
pubmed: 35584897
JAMA. 2001 Jul 4;286(1):71-7
pubmed: 11434829
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jun 24;19(1):414
pubmed: 31234832
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
Lancet. 2001 Aug 11;358(9280):483-8
pubmed: 11513933
Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Jun;11(2):148-52
pubmed: 12448807
Transplant Rev (Orlando). 2019 Jan;33(1):1-8
pubmed: 30318183
Anaesthesia. 2020 Sep;75(9):1146-1152
pubmed: 32372409
Transplantation. 2017 Mar;101(3):482-487
pubmed: 27764030
J Med Ethics. 2019 Jul;45(7):435-439
pubmed: 31230037
Qual Health Care. 1994 Jun;3(2):107-13
pubmed: 10137583
BMC Public Health. 2019 Nov 6;19(1):1463
pubmed: 31694604
J Crit Care. 2020 Oct;59:166-171
pubmed: 32674003
Am J Bioeth. 2016 Nov;16(11):3-12
pubmed: 27749166
Qual Health Res. 1999 Jan;9(1):26-44
pubmed: 10558357
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Jan;25(1):46-55
pubmed: 26424762
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Transplantation. 2019 May;103(5):e112-e118
pubmed: 31033855
BMJ Open. 2022 Sep 8;12(9):e057107
pubmed: 36441113
Fam Pract. 1996 Dec;13(6):522-5
pubmed: 9023528
JAMA. 2001 Jan 17;285(3):329-33
pubmed: 11176844
Crit Care. 2004 Oct;8(5):382-8
pubmed: 15469581
Transpl Int. 2022 Jul 04;35:10466
pubmed: 35859668
BMJ. 2018 Feb 16;360:k768
pubmed: 29453192
BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 3;9(4):e025159
pubmed: 30948578
BMJ. 2001 May 5;322(7294):1115-7
pubmed: 11337448
Bioethics. 2017 Jul;31(6):424-431
pubmed: 28032367
Transplantation. 2018 Aug;102(8):1202-1204
pubmed: 30044363