ArticleNursing open2024
The circulatory death that saves lives-Intensive care nurses' conceptions of participating during 'donation after circulatory death': A phenomenographic study.
Article in Nursing open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical tensions and professional attitudes toward circulatory death organ donation in the ICU: a systematic review.Intensive care medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Education and Ethical Guidance for Organ Donation at the End-of-Life: An Ethical Guidance Statement from the Neurocritical Care Society.Neurocritical care · 2026Review
- The Heart of the Matter: Staff Insights Into Organ Donation Conversations.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
- The circulatory death that saves lives-Intensive care nurses' conceptions of participating during 'donation after circulatory death': A phenomenographic study.Nursing open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo describe intensive care nurses' conceptions of participating during the donation after circulatory death (DCD) process in intensive care units in Sweden.
designA qualitative design with a phenomenographic approach.
methodsIn total, 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted in April 2022 with intensive care nurses from three hospitals. Data were analysed using a phenomenographic approach.
resultsConceptions of participating during the DCD process varied. Four main themes emerged: DCD as a system; Intensive care nurses' role in the situation; Life to death to life; The essence of DCD. Variations emerged regarding what the informants talked about and how they talked about the what. Variations were based on informants' perspective of their role in relation to the structure and the team, and their conceptions of care for patients and their relatives.
conclusionThe findings illustrated success factors and challenges. Knowledge, experience, distinct structure, and relationship with relatives, among other factors, were described as success factors, while a lack of experience, difficulty in prognosing death, and organisational obstacles emerged as challenges. Furthermore, the findings showed that intensive care nurses play an important role in optimising the outcome of the DCD process. Their work related to DCD was conceived as being meaningful to fulfil more peoples' wishes to donate organs. IMPACT: People on the waiting list for organ transplantation are dying due to a shortage of organs. The implementation of DCD, as a complement to Donation after Brain Death (DBD), contributed to an increase in the number of organ donors, and intensive care nurses play an important role during the DCD process. Previous research manifests the complexity concerning their role. There is a lack of nursing research regarding intensive care nurses' conceptions of what it means to participate in the DCD process, which emphasises the significance of this study. REPORTING
methodThis study is reported using consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (SRQR). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.