Ethical reflection support for potential organ donors' relatives: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Even in countries with an opt-out or presumed consent system, relatives have a considerable influence on the post-mortem organ harvesting decision. However, their reflection capacity may be compromised by grief, and they are, therefore, often prone to choose refusal as default option. Quite often, it results in late remorse and dissatisfaction. So, a high-quality reflection support seems critical to enable them to gain a stable position and a long-term peace of mind, and also avoid undue loss of potential grafts. In practice, recent studies have shown that the ethical aspects of reflection are rarely and often poorly discussed with relatives and that no or incomplete guidance is offered. No review of the literature is available to date, although it could be of value to improve the quality of the daily practice. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to review and synthesize the main concepts and approaches, theories and practices of ethical reflection support of the relatives or surrogates of potential post-mortem organ donors. RESEARCH DESIGN: A narrative review was performed in the medical, psychological and ethical fields using PubMed, PsycArticles and Web of Science databases (1980-2020). RESULTS: Out of 150 papers, 25 were finally retained. Four themes were drawn: the moral status of the potential post-mortem organ donor, the principlistic approach with its limits and critics, the narrative approach and the transcendental approach. DISCUSSION: This review suggests an extension of psychological support towards ethical reflection support. The process of helping relatives in their ethical exploration of post-mortem organ donation is psychologically and morally characterized. The need for specialized professionals educated and experienced both in clinical psychology and in health ethics to carry out this task is discussed. PRACTICAL IMPACT: This review could contribute to optimize the quality of the ethical reflection support by initiating an evolution from an empirical, partial and individual-dependent support to a more systematized, professionalized and exhaustive support.

Being Convinced and Taking Responsibility: A Qualitative Study of Family Members' Experience of Organ Donation Decision and Bereavement After Brain Death.

OBJECTIVES: Family members of brain dead patients experience an unprecedented situation in which not only they are told that their loved one is dead but are also asked to consider organ donation. The objective of this qualitative study was to determine 1) what it means for family members to make the decision and to take responsibility, 2) how they interact with the deceased patient in the ICU, 3) how family members describe the impact of the process and of the decision on their bereavement process. DESIGN: Qualitative study using interviews with bereaved family members who were approached for organ donation after the death of their relative in the ICU (brain death). SETTING: Family members from 13 ICUs in France. SUBJECTS: Bereaved family members who were approached for organ donation after the death of their relative in the ICU (brain death). INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Twenty-four interviews were conducted with 16 relatives of organ donor patients and with eight relatives of nonorgan donor patients. Three themes emerged: 1) taking responsibility-relatives explain how they endorse decisional responsibility but do not experience it as a burden, on the contrary; 2) ambiguous perceptions of death-two groups of relatives emerge: those for whom ambiguity hinders their acceptance of the patient's death; those for whom ambiguity is an opportunity to accept the death and say goodbye; and 3) donation as a comfort during bereavement. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of caregivers' efforts to focus organ donation discussions and decision on the patient, family members feel a strong decisional responsibility that is not experienced as a burden but a proof of their strong connection to the patient. Brain death however creates ambivalent experiences that some family members endure whereas others use as an opportunity to perform separation rituals. Last, organ donation can be experienced as a form of comfort during bereavement provided family members remain convinced their decision was right.

Grief Symptoms in Relatives Who Experienced Organ Donation Requests in the ICU.

RATIONALE: Studies show that the quality of end-of-life communication and care have a significant impact on the living long after the death of a relative and have been implicated in the burden of psychological symptoms after the ICU experience. In the case of organ donation, the patient's relatives are centrally involved in the decision-making process; yet, few studies have examined the impact of the quality of communication on the burden of psychological symptoms after death. OBJECTIVES: To assess the experience of the organ donation process and grief symptoms in relatives of brain-dead patients who discussed organ donation in the ICU. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter longitudinal study in 28 ICUs in France. Participants were the relatives of brain-dead patients who were approached to discuss organ donation. Relatives were followed-up by phone at three time points: at 1 month, to complete a questionnaire describing their experience of the organ donation process; at 3 months, to complete the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised; and at 9 months, to complete the Impact of Event Scale-Revised and the Inventory of Complicated Grief. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In total, 202 relatives of 202 patients were included, of whom 158 consented to and 44 refused organ donation. Interviews were conducted at 1, 3, and 9 months with 78%, 68%, and 58% of relatives, respectively. The overall experience of the organ donation process was significantly more burdensome for relatives of nondonors. They were more dissatisfied with communication (27% vs. 10%; P = 0.021), more often shocked by the request (65% vs. 19%; P < 0.0001), and more often found the decision difficult (53% vs. 27%; P = 0.017). However, there were no significant differences in grief symptoms measured at 3 and 9 months between the two groups. Understanding of brain death was associated with grief symptoms; our results show a higher prevalence of complicated grief symptoms among relatives who did not understand the brain death process than among those who did (75% vs. 46.1%; P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Experience of the organ donation process varied between relatives of donor versus nondonor patients, with relatives of nondonors experiencing lower-quality communication, but the decision was not associated with subsequent grief symptoms. Importantly, understanding of brain death is a key element of the organ donation process for relatives.

Clinicians' Perception and Experience of Organ Donation From Brain-Dead Patients.

OBJECTIVE: ICU clinicians are primarily involved in organ donation after brain death of ICU patients. Their perceptions of organ donation may affect outcomes. Our objective was to describe ICU clinician's perceptions and experience of organ donation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study among physicians and nurses (90 ICUs in France). We used factorial correspondence analysis to describe categories of clinicians regarding their perceptions and experience of organ donation. Factors associated with a positive (motivating) or negative (stressful) experiences were studied using multivariate logistic regression. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians and nurses. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three thousand three hundred twenty-five clinicians working in 77 ICUs returned questionnaires. Professionals who experienced organ donation as motivating were younger (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.32-0.53; p < 0.001), more often potential organ donors (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.56-2.35; p < 0.001), less likely to describe inconsistency (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23-0.8) or complexity (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45-0.67) of their feelings versus their professional activity, less likely to report that organ donation was not a priority in their ICU (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55-0.84), and more likely to have participated in meetings of transplant coordinators with relatives (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.37-2.14; p < 0.001). Professionals who felt organ donation was stressful were older (odds ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.34-2.54; p < 0.001), less often physicians (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.77; p < 0.001), more likely to describe shift from curative care to organ donation as emotionally complex (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.52-2.21; p < 0.001), care of relatives of brain-dead patients as complex (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.32-1.93; p < 0.001), and inconsistency and complexity of personal feelings about organ donation versus professional activity (odds ratio, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.92-5.53; p < 0.001), and more likely to have little experience with caring for potential organ donors (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.09-2.04). CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences exist among ICU clinician's perceptions of organ donation. Whether these differences affect family experience and consent rates deserves investigation.

[Prospective study of harvest-to-transplant time: proposed organization]. / Etude prospective des temps passés du prélèvement à la greffe. Proposition d'organisation.

INTRODUCTION: The cold ischaemia time of a kidney before transplantation has a negative impact on the risk of acute tubular necrosis and graft survival. This cold ischaemia time can be reduced by a different organization of harvesting, organ distribution and transplantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy nine organ donor case files from the same hospital were reviewed from reception of the donor until transplantation. 135 renal transplantations, including 60 kidneys and 14 kidney-pancreas transplants were performed on site with organs harvested from these donors. The various phases of harvesting were studied: reception and resuscitation of the patient took 30 hours, and the diagnosis of brain death, information of the families and transfer of the donor to the operating room for harvesting took 11 hours. RESULTS: The mean cold ischaemia time was 6 hours when kidney-pancreas transplantation was performed and 22 hours 30 minutes for isolated local renal transplantation. The decisive factor is the time required to obtain HLA typing, which is only performed during organ harvesting for isolated renal transplantation. HLA typing and lymph node sampling in the intensive care unit would save 7 hours. CONCLUSION: The authors recommend that HLA typing and lymph node sampling for cross matches be performed in the intensive care unit in order to reduce the cold ischaemia time.

Long-term results of renal transplantation using kidneys harvested from non-heartbeating donors: a 15-year experience.

PURPOSE: To expand the pool of suitable organ donors we developed an organ procurement program of non-heartbeating donors during the last 15 years. We compare graft survival in patients receiving renal transplants procured from non-heartbeating with recipients of kidneys from heartbeating donors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1986 to 1999, 60 renal transplantations were performed with kidneys harvested from non-heartbeating donors (Mastrich category IV). Kidneys were procured using a double balloon triple lumen catheter inserted into the femoral artery. The 60 kidneys were selected from 70 non-heartbeating donors based on age younger than 50 years, warm ischemia less than 30 minutes, creatinine less than 200 micromol./l., and no hypertension or major histological lesions. Long-term results of graft survival and complications were compared with a series of 1,065 renal transplantations performed during the same period with kidneys procured from heartbeating donors. RESULTS: Mean age of the recipients was statistically different as non-heartbeating donors were older. However, the 10-year graft survival rates were similar in both groups (50% versus 53%). Incidence of ureteral stenosis and fistula, arterial stenosis and thrombosis was not statistically different in both groups. On the other hand, delay graft function was more frequent in non-heartbeating donors (60% versus 40%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high rate of acute tubular necrosis, kidneys harvested from non-heartbeating donors had the same graft survival rates as those procured from heartbeating donors. Surgical complications were not different. Transplantation of selected kidneys procured from non-heartbeating donors should be promoted as a response to organ shortage.