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.

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.

Determining the impact of timing and of clinical factors during end-of-life decision-making in potential controlled donation after circulatory death donors.

Controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) occurs after a decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment and subsequent family approach and approval for donation. We currently lack data on factors that impact the decision-making process on withdraw life-sustaining treatment and whether time from admission to family approach, influences family consent rates. Such insights could be important in improving the clinical practice of potential cDCD donors. In a prospective multicenter observational study, we evaluated the impact of timing and of the clinical factors during the end-of-life decision-making process in potential cDCD donors. Characteristics and medication use of 409 potential cDCD donors admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) were assessed. End-of-life decision-making was made after a mean time of 97 hours after ICU admission and mostly during the day. Intracranial hemorrhage or ischemic stroke and a high APACHE IV score were associated with a short decision-making process. Preserved brainstem reflexes, high Glasgow Coma Scale scores, or cerebral infections were associated with longer time to decision-making. Our data also suggest that the organ donation request could be made shortly after the decision to stop active treatment and consent rates were not influenced by daytime or nighttime or by the duration of the ICU stay.