IMPORTANCE Brain death is the irreversible cessation of function of the entire brain, and it is a medically and legally accepted mechanism of death in the United States and worldwide. Significant variability may exist in individual institutional policies regarding the determination of brain death. It is imperative that brain death be diagnosed accurately in every patient. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) issued new guidelines in 2010 on the determination of brain death. OBJECTIVE To evaluate if institutions have adopted the new AAN guidelines on the determination of brain death, leading to policy changes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Fifty-two organ procurement organizations provided US hospital policies pertaining to the criteria for determining brain death. Organizations were instructed to procure protocols specific to brain death (ie, not cardiac death or organ donation procedures). Data analysis was conducted from June 26, 2012, to July 1, 2015.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Policies were evaluated for summary statistics across the following 5 categories of data: who is qualified to perform the determination of brain death, what are the necessary prerequisites for testing, details of the clinical examination, details of apnea testing, and details of ancillary testing. We compared these data with the standards in the 2010 AAN update on practice parameters for brain death. RESULTS A total of 508 unique hospital policies were obtained, representing the majority of hospitals in the United States that would be eligible and equipped to evaluate brain death in a patient. Of these, 492 provided adequate data for analysis. Although improvement with AAN practice parameters was readily apparent, there remained significant variability across all 5 categories of data, such as excluding the absence of hypotension (276 of 491 policies [56.2%]) and hypothermia (181 of 228 policies [79.4%]), specifying all aspects of the clinical examination and apnea testing, and specifying appropriate ancillary tests and how they were to be performed. Of the 492 policies, 163 (33.1%) required specific expertise in neurology or neurosurgery for the health care professional who determines brain death, and 212 (43.1%) stipulated that an attending physician determine brain death; 150 policies did not mention who could perform such determination.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Hospital policies in the United States for the determination of brain death are still widely variable and not fully congruent with contemporary practice parameters. Hospitals should be encouraged to implement the 2010 AAN guidelines to ensure 100% accurate and appropriate determination of brain death.

Objective:To demonstrate that progress has been made in unifying brain death determination guidelines in the last decade by directly comparing the policies of the US News and World Report's top 50 ranked neurologic institutions from 2006 and 2015.Methods:We solicited official hospital guidelines in 2015 from these top 50 institutions, generated summary statistics of their criteria as benchmarked against the American Academy of Neurology Practice Parameters (AANPP) and the comparison 2006 cohort in 5 key categories, and statistically compared the 2 cohorts' compliance with the AANPP.Results:From 2008 to 2015, hospital policies exhibited significant improvement (p = 0.005) in compliance with official guidelines, particularly with respect to criteria related to apnea testing (p = 0.009) and appropriate ancillary testing (p = 0.0006). However, variability remains in other portions of the policies, both those with specific recommendation from the AANPP (e.g., specifics for ancillary tests) and those without firm guidance (e.g., the level of involvement of neurologists, neurosurgeons, or physicians with education/training specific to brain death in the determination process).Conclusions:While the 2010 AANPP update seems to be concordant with progress in achieving greater uniformity in guidelines at the top 50 neurologic institutions, more needs to be done. Whether further interventions come as grassroots initiatives that leverage technological advances in promoting adoption of new guidelines or as top-down regulatory rulings to mandate speedier approval processes, this study shows that solely relying on voluntary updates to professional society guidelines is not enough.