MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

National evaluation of healthcare provider attitudes toward organ donation after cardiac death*

2006· article· en· W1991458519 on OpenAlex
M. Susan Mandell, Stacy Zamudio, Debbie Seem, Lin McGaw, Geri Wood, Patricia Liehr, Angela M. Ethier, Anthony M. D’Alessandro

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
FundersU.S. Public Health ServiceU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsOrgan donationMedicineHealth careFocus groupDonationEnd-of-life careNursingFamily medicineMedical emergencyTransplantationPalliative careSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Organ donation after cardiac death will save lives by increasing the number of transplantable organs. But many healthcare providers are reluctant to participate when the withdrawal of intensive care leads to organ donation. Prior surveys indicate ethical concerns as a barrier to the practice of organ donation after cardiac death, but the specific issues that characterize these concerns are unknown. We thus aimed to identify what barriers healthcare providers perceive. DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts to identify issues of broad importance. SETTING: Healthcare setting. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 141 healthcare providers representing critical care and perioperative nurses, transplant surgeons, medical examiners, organ procurement personnel, neurosurgeons, and neurologists. INTERVENTIONS: Collection and analysis of information regarding healthcare providers' attitudes and beliefs. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All focus groups agreed that increased organ availability is a benefit but questioned the quality of organs recovered. Study participants identified a lack of standards for patient prognostication and cardiopulmonary death and a failure to prevent a conflict between patient and donor interests as obstacles to acceptance of organ donation after cardiac death. They questioned the practices and motives of colleagues who participate in organ donation after cardiac death, apprehensive that real or perceived impropriety would affect public perception. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers are uncomfortable at the clinical juncture where end-of-life care and organ donation interface. Our findings are consistent with theories that care providers are hesitant to perform medical tasks that they consider to be outside the focus of their practice, especially when there is potential conflict of interest. This conflict appears to impose moral distress on healthcare providers and limits acceptance of organ donation after cardiac death. Future research is warranted to examine the effect of standardized procedures on reducing moral distress. The hypothesis generated by this qualitative study is that use of neutral third parties to broach the subject of organ donation may improve acceptance of organ donation after cardiac death.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it