This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Background and Objective To examine the verification of a referring hospital's practice of determining death by neurologic criteria (DNC) by an organ procurement organization (OPO) pursuant to the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services rule §486.344(b).
Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we examined prevalence and factors associated with deviations from acceptable DNC standards, the performance of additional ancillary testing requested by the OPO, resolution of concerns about deviations between referring hospitals and the OPO, and interactions between referring hospitals and the OPO.
Results The OPO reviewed DNC processes for 645 adult potential organ donors from 64 referral hospitals. Concerns about practice deviations from acceptable standards were identified by the OPO's medical director (also a practicing neurointensivist) on call in 19% (n = 120) and were related to clinical prerequisites (27.2%, n = 49), clinical examination (23.9%, n = 67), and apnea testing (25.3%, n = 97). The top 3 concerns were apnea test results not meeting PCO2 targets (6.7%, n = 43), errors in documentation of the clinical examination (5.3%, n = 34), and potential confounding effects of CNS depressants (2.5%, n = 16). Compared with the “no medical director concerns” group which includes all patients, where the coordinator felt that DNC determination met all the conditions on the checklist, medical director concerns were less likely to occur in hospitals with a dedicated neurocritical care unit (odds ratio [OR] 0.33, 95% CI 0.17–0.66, p < 0.001), prevalent across hospitals independent of whether their policies conformed to updated DNC guidelines (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.57–1.45, p = 0.720). The OPO requested additional ancillary testing (6%, n = 41) when clinical prerequisites were not met (OR 12.7, 95% CI 4.29–33.5), p < 0.001). Resolution of concerns and organ donation was achieved in 99.4% (n = 641). Four patients were rejected as brain-dead donors because of the presence of cerebral blood flow on the nuclear medicine perfusion test. Referring hospitals requested support from the OPO regarding the determination of DNC (10%, n = 64) and declaring physicians were reported to lack knowledge about the institutional DNC policy (4%, n = 23).
Discussion Ongoing review of institutional DNC standards and adherence to those standards is an urgent unmet need. Both referring hospitals and OPOs jointly carry responsibility for preventing errors in DNC leading up to organ recovery.
Footnotes
Funding information and disclosures are provided at the end of the article. Full disclosure form information provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at Neurology.org/cp.
Submitted and externally peer reviewed. The handling editor was Deputy Editor Kathryn Kvam, MD.
Editorial, page 334
- Received April 13, 2022.
- Accepted August 3, 2022.
- © 2022 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
The Nerve!: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
