ArticleAnnals of intensive care2026
Experience of Clinicians and Relatives with Donation after Controlled Circulatory Death: A Prospective Qualitative Study.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) has been encouraged in many countries for over ten years. This procedure requires close link between intensive care unit (ICU) and organ procurement teams, and relatives. Data on the experiences of these different stakeholders involved in cDCD are scarce. Objective: To gain insights into the experience of intensive-care teams, organ-procurement teams, and relatives during cDCD. Methods: For this qualitative study, physician and nurse members of ICU and organ-procurement teams participated in focus groups. Also, relatives of cDCD donors participated in semi-structured telephone interviews a few months after the death. All relatives were included in the ongoing PRODON randomised controlled trial of organ-procurement-team involvement in requesting cDCD from relatives. The staff members worked at hospitals involved in the trial. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to assess the focus-group and telephone-interview data. The study was guided by the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). Results: We included 23 healthcare professionals and 10 relatives at five hospitals in France. The data show that the cDCD process evolves in three distinct stages in both the professionals and the relatives: uncertainty in the face of a life-threatening disease but persistent hope for survival, shift towards certainty that death is inevitable, and end of life with a request for donation. The professionals sometimes perceived a conflict between a good death and technically successful cDCD. The relatives needed time to come to terms with cDCD and to understand the procedure. Conclusions: The identification of three stages in the cDCD process can be expected to help intensive-care and organ-procurement teams provide effective support to relatives, define the role of each professional, and strengthen cooperation and communication between the two teams of professionals.
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.