Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jul 11:14:52.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2253-14-52. eCollection 2014.

Intensive care staff, the donation request and relatives' satisfaction with the decision: a focus group study

Jack de Groot  1 , Myrra Vernooij-Dassen  2 , Anneke de Vries  3 , Cornelia Hoedemaekers  4 , Andries Hoitsma  5 , Wim Smeets  6 , Evert van Leeuwen  7
Affiliations

Intensive care staff, the donation request and relatives' satisfaction with the decision: a focus group study

Jack de Groot et al. BMC Anesthesiol. .

Abstract

Background: Effectiveness of the donation request is generally measured by consent rates, rather than by relatives' satisfaction with their decision. Our aim was to elicit Dutch ICU staffs' views and experiences with the donation request, to investigate their awareness of (dis)satisfaction with donation decisions by relatives, specifically in the case of refusal, and to collect advice that may leave more relatives satisfied with their decision.

Methods: Five focus groups with a total of 32 participants (IC physicians, IC nurses and transplant coordinators) from five university hospitals in the Netherlands. Transcripts were examined using standard qualitative methods.

Results: Four themes (donation request perceived by ICU staff from the perspective of relatives; donation request perceived by ICU staff from their own perspective; aftercare; donation in society) divided into 14 categories were identified. According to ICU staff, relatives mentioned their own values more frequently than values of the potential donor as important for the decision. ICU staff observed this imbalance, but reacted empathically to the relatives' point of view. ICU staff rarely suggested reconsideration of refusal and did not ask relatives for arguments. ICU staff did not always feel comfortable with a request in the delicate context of brain death. Sometimes the interests of patient, relatives and those on the waiting list were irreconcilable. ICU staff were mostly unaware of relatives' regret following their decisions. Aftercare did not provide this type of information. Donation request by IC physicians was influenced by the way organ donation has been regulated in society (law, donor register, education, media).

Conclusions: Our findings lead to the hypothesis that giving relatives more time and inviting them to reconsider their initial refusal will lead to a more stable decision and possibly more consent.

Keywords: Donation request; Health care professionals; Organ donation; Qualitative research; Regret.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Brown CV, Foulkrod KH, Dworaczyk S, Thompson K, Elliot E, Cooper H, Coopwood B. Barriers to obtaining family consent for potential organ donors. J Trauma. 2010;68(2):447–451. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181caab8f. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ehrle R. Timely referral of potential organ donors. Crit Care Nurse. 2006;26(2):88–93. - PubMed
    1. Frutos MA, Ruiz P, Requena MV, Daga D. Family refusal in organ donation: analysis of three patterns. Transplant Proc. 2002;34(7):2513–2514. doi: 10.1016/S0041-1345(02)03469-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shafer TJ. Improving relatives’ consent to organ donation. BMJ. 2009;338(7702):1023. - PubMed
    1. Siminoff LA, Marshall HM, Dumenci L, Bowen G, Swaminathan A, Gordon N. Communicating effectively about donation: an educational intervention to increase consent to donation. Prog Transplant. 2009;19(1):35–43. - PubMed

Publication types