Observational studyCritical care explorations2025
Organ Procurement Organization Approach of ICU Families in Person Versus by Phone for Donation Authorization.
Observational study in Critical care explorations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDue to hospital visitor restriction policies, the COVID-19 pandemic forced many conversations between ICU patients' families and organ procurement organizations (OPOs) to be conducted by phone, as opposed to in-person. We aimed to determine if OPO phone approaches are a negative predictor of authorization for donation.
designRetrospective observational study.
settingHospitals partnering with New England Donor Services (NEDS) as their OPO. PATIENTS/SUBJECTS: Multicenter database study of all ICU patients from 2017 to 2021 whose families had been approached by NEDS. Of note, registered organ donors who were declared brain dead were excluded due to their prior first-person authorization. However, registered organ donors who were candidates for donation after circulatory death were included in the analysis because of the family's role in controlling the timing of ventilator withdrawal and, thus, their critical role in determining donation success.
interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsIn addition to whether OPO approaches occurred in person or by phone, we extracted covariate data on patient and surrogate demographics, OPO representative training, and extent of ICU-OPO collaboration. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine predictors of successful authorization. Among 2240 approaches of potential organ donors, OPO donation discussions by phone constituted 221 of 1282 (17%) of authorizations, as opposed to 134 of 958 (14%) of failed attempts (p = 0.04). In a multivariate model, phone approach was no longer significantly negatively associated with authorization. However, patient race/ethnicity, registered status for donors after cardiac death, ICU-OPO collaboration, specialized OPO representative training, OPO representative being the sole participant in authorization discussions, and surrogate relationship were strong predictors.
conclusionsOPO approach by phone is not a barrier to organ donation. Strategies for successful donation discussions should focus on collaborative processes between ICU teams and OPOs and involvement of OPO representatives with special training for discussing authorization.
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.