Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30041683›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Development of key interventions and quality indicators for the management of an adult potential donor after brain death: a RAND modified Delphi approach.

Pieter Hoste, Eric Hoste, Patrick Ferdinande, Koenraad Vandewoude, Dirk Vogelaers, Ann Van Hecke, Xavier Rogiers, Kristof Eeckloo, Kris Vanhaecht, Donation after Brain Death Study Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Quality metrics in solid organ donation: A narrative review.World journal of transplantation · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Pieter HosteDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. piehoste.hoste@ugent.be.ORCID 0000-0002-3839-7766
Eric HosteFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Patrick FerdinandeSurgical and Transplantation ICU, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Koenraad VandewoudeFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Dirk VogelaersDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Ann Van HeckeFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Xavier RogiersFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Kristof EecklooFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Kris VanhaechtLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Donation after Brain Death Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA substantial degree of variability in practices exists amongst donor hospitals regarding the donor detection, determination of brain death, application of donor management techniques or achievement of donor management goals. A possible strategy to standardize the donation process and to optimize outcomes could lie in the implementation of a care pathway. The aim of the study was to identify and select a set of relevant key interventions and quality indicators in order to develop a specific care pathway for donation after brain death and to rigorously evaluate its impact.

methodsA RAND modified three-round Delphi approach was used to build consensus within a single country about potential key interventions and quality indicators identified in existing guidelines, review articles, process flow diagrams and the results of the Organ Donation European Quality System (ODEQUS) project. Comments and additional key interventions and quality indicators, identified in the first round, were evaluated in the following rounds and a subsequent physical meeting. The study was conducted over a 4-month time period in 2016.

resultsA multidisciplinary panel of 18 Belgian experts with different relevant backgrounds completed the three Delphi rounds. Out of a total of 80 key interventions assessed throughout the Delphi process, 65 were considered to contribute to the quality of care for the management of a potential donor after brain death; 11 out of 12 quality indicators were validated for relevance and feasibility. Detection of all potential donors after brain death in the intensive care unit and documentation of cause of no donation were rated as the most important quality indicators.

conclusionsUsing a RAND modified Delphi approach, consensus was reached for a set of 65 key interventions and 11 quality indicators for the management of a potential donor after brain death. This set is considered to be applicable in quality improvement programs for the care of potential donors after brain death, while taking into account each country's legislation and regulations regarding organ donation and transplantation.

Indexed as

Brain DeathDelphi TechniqueTissue DonorsAdultAgedBelgiumConsensusDocumentationFemaleHospitalsHumansMaleMiddle AgedProfessional PracticeQuality ImprovementQuality Indicators, Health CareCritical careDeceased donationDelphi techniqueDonation after brain deathKey interventionsQuality indicators

Identifiers

PMID30041683
PMCPMC6056930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.