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

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY BMC Anesthesiology Pub Date : 2014-07-11 eCollection Date: 2014-01-01 DOI:10.1186/1471-2253-14-52
Jack de Groot, Myrra Vernooij-Dassen, Anneke de Vries, Cornelia Hoedemaekers, Andries Hoitsma, Wim Smeets, Evert van Leeuwen
{"title":"Intensive care staff, the donation request and relatives' satisfaction with the decision: a focus group study.","authors":"Jack de Groot,&nbsp;Myrra Vernooij-Dassen,&nbsp;Anneke de Vries,&nbsp;Cornelia Hoedemaekers,&nbsp;Andries Hoitsma,&nbsp;Wim Smeets,&nbsp;Evert van Leeuwen","doi":"10.1186/1471-2253-14-52","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":"52"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1471-2253-14-52","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-14-52","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重症监护人员、捐献请求及家属对决定的满意度:焦点小组研究。
背景:捐赠请求的有效性通常是通过同意率来衡量的,而不是通过亲属对其决定的满意度来衡量的。我们的目的是询问荷兰ICU工作人员对捐赠请求的看法和经验,调查他们对亲属捐赠决定(不满意)的认识,特别是在拒绝捐赠的情况下,并收集建议,使更多的亲属对他们的决定感到满意。方法:来自荷兰五所大学医院的五个焦点小组共32名参与者(IC医生,IC护士和移植协调员)。转录本采用标准定性方法检测。结果:4个主题(ICU工作人员从亲属角度感知的捐献请求;ICU工作人员从自身角度感知的捐赠请求;安置;社会捐赠)分为14个类别。根据ICU工作人员的说法,亲属提及自己的价值观比潜在捐赠者的价值观更频繁,对决定更重要。ICU工作人员观察到这种不平衡,但对亲属的观点感同身受。ICU工作人员很少建议重新考虑拒绝,也不要求亲属争论。ICU的工作人员并不总是对在脑死亡的微妙背景下提出的请求感到满意。有时,病人、家属和等候名单上的人的利益是不可调和的。ICU工作人员大多不知道家属在做出决定后的后悔。Aftercare没有提供这类信息。社会对器官捐献的规范方式(法律、捐献登记、教育、媒体)影响了IC医生的捐献请求。结论:我们的研究结果提出了一个假设,即给亲属更多的时间,并邀请他们重新考虑他们最初的拒绝,将导致更稳定的决定,可能更多的同意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Anesthesiology
BMC Anesthesiology ANESTHESIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
349
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Anesthesiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care and pain management, including clinical and experimental research into anesthetic mechanisms, administration and efficacy, technology and monitoring, and associated economic issues.
期刊最新文献
Intraoperative haemodynamic responses to opioid-free anaesthesia versus anaesthesia with fentanyl for laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a prospective observational pilot study. Association between regional anaesthesia strategies, postoperative pain and same-day discharge following knee arthroplasty: a single-centre service evaluation. Agreement between analgesia nociception index (ANI) and surgical pleth index (SPI) in assessing nociception under varying systemic vascular resistance conditions. Comparison of two-lung ventilation with CO₂ artificial pneumothorax and one-lung ventilation during esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study. The impact of a 24-hour call shift on cognitive function and simulated resuscitation performance in anaesthesia providers: a pilot study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1