Glasgow Coma Scale 7 or Less Surveillance Program for Brain Death Identification in Argentina: Epidemiology and Outcome

Bustos, José Luis; Surt, K.; Soratti, Carlos

doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2006.10.046

Cited by 11 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 The emergence of brain death in a patient with a catastrophic brain injury is uncommon, and surveys have indicated that only 5% to 10% of all comatose patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) become brain dead. [1][2][3] The appearance of total flaccidity, absent cough to tracheal suctioning, breathing at ventilator rate, sudden hypotension, invariant heart rate, profound diuresis in a patient with fixed pupils, and no corneal and oculovestibular reflexes are clinical indicators.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pronouncing brain death

Wijdicks¹,

Rabinstein²,

Manno³

et al. 2008

Neurology

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pronouncing brain death

Wijdicks¹,

Rabinstein²,

Manno³

et al. 2008

Neurology

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is worth noting that there is a high mortality rate of 70% among patients with GCS 7 or less, and 43% occurred due to brain death (18). Therefore, to cover all potential donors, we recommend assessing and following all of these issues in further visits.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitators and Barriers to Donor Detection Based on Hospital Staff Opinions in Different Hospitals

2022

ircmj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ackground: Donor detection is the first step of organ procurement for transplantation, and about 50% of all potential donors are not detected. Objectives: The present study aimed to evaluate the facilitators and barriers to donor detection based on hospital characteristics and staff opinions. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a 16-item questionnaire was prepared to clarify medical staff opinions about facilitators (10 items) and barriers (6 items) to potential donor detection. The questionnaire was distributed on social networks, and all medical staff members were invited to participate in the study. Results: A total of 230 medical staff participated in this study. From their point of view, the main facilitator was active detection via regular daily phone calls (150, 65.2%), which had the most advocators among medical staff of public (64.1%) and private hospitals (74.5%). Detection by donor coordinators or inspectors tanked the second (103, 44.8%). Moreover, private hospitals highly agreed with detection by donor coordinators and inspectors in 66.7% and 60.8% of cases, respectively. Donor detection by an in-hospital-coordinator was recommended by 42.6% of all 230 participants, with most advocators among those affiliated with an organization (65.4%). Staff opinions about donor selection and care to donor families were important barriers according to 53.5% and 46.1% of subjects, respectively. Conclusion: To identify all potential donors, different strategies are necessary according to hospital characteristics. In public hospitals, daily calls; in private ones, active visits; and in an-organization-related hospitals, in-hospital coordinators could be effective.

show abstract