Postmortem studies are crucial for providing insight into emergent diseases. However, a complete autopsy is frequently not feasible in highly transmissible diseases due to biohazard challenges. Minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) is a needle-based approach aimed at collecting samples of key organs without opening the body, which may be a valid alternative in these cases. We aimed to: a) provide biosafety guidelines for conducting MIAs in COVID-19 cases, b) compare the performance of MIA versus complete autopsy, and c) evaluate the safety of the procedure. Between October and December 2020, MIAs were conducted in six deceased patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, in a basic autopsy room, with reinforced personal protective equipment. Samples from the lungs and key organs were successfully obtained in all cases. A complete autopsy was performed on the same body immediately after the MIA. The diagnoses of the MIA matched those of the complete autopsy. In four patients, COVID-19 was the main cause of death, being responsible for the different stages of diffuse alveolar damage. No COVID-19 infection was detected in the personnel performing the MIAs or complete autopsies. In conclusion, MIA might be a feasible, adequate and safe alternative for cause of death investigation in COVID-19 cases.

Background: Because of low acceptance rates and limited capacity, complete diagnostic autopsies (CDAs) are seldom conducted in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). There have been growing investments in less-invasive postmortem examination methodologies, including needle-based autopsy, known as minimally invasive autopsy or minimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS). MITS has been shown to be a feasible and informative alternative to CDA for cause of death investigation and mortality surveillance purposes. Objective: The aim of this narrative review is to describe historical use and evolution of needlebased postmortem procedures as a tool to ascertain the cause of death, especially in LMICs. Methods: Key word searches were conducted in PubMed and EBSCO in 2018 and 2019. Abstracts were reviewed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full publications were reviewed for those abstracts meeting inclusion criteria and a start set was established. A snowball search methodology was used and references for all publications meeting inclusion criteria were manually reviewed until saturation was reached. Results: A total of 1,177 publications were initially screened. Following an iterative review of references, 79 publications were included in this review. Twenty-nine studies, published between 1955 and 2019, included MITS as part of postmortem examination. Of the publications included, 76% (60/79) have publication dates after 2010. More than 60% of all publications included addressed MITS in LMICs, and a total of nine publications compared MITS with CDA. Conclusions: Although there is evidence of less-invasive postmortem sampling starting in the 1800s, more structured needle-based postmortem examination publications started to appear in the mid-twentieth century. Early studies were mostly conducted in high-income countries but starting in 2010 the number of publications began to increase, and a growing number of studies were conducted in LMICs. Initial studies in LMICs were disease-specific but since 2015 have evolved to include more expansive postmortem examination.

This curriculum demonstrated success in increasing perceived skills for interprofessional palliative care clinicians in advanced communication, team practice, and metrics and system integration.

Globally, more than 5 million stillbirths and neonatal deaths occur annually. For many, the cause of death (CoD) is unknown. Minimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS) has been increasingly used in postmortem examinations for ascertaining the CoD in stillbirths and neonates. Our study compared the counseling and consent methods used in MITS projects in five countries in Africa and south Asia. Key informant interviews were conducted with researchers to describe the characteristics and backgrounds of counselors, the environment and timing of consent and perceived facilitators and barriers encountered during the consent process. Counselors at all sites had backgrounds in social science, psychology and counseling or clinical expertise in obstetrics/gynecology or pediatrics. All counsellors received training about techniques for building rapport and offering emotional support to families; training duration and methods differed across sites. Counselling environments varied significantly; some sites allocated a separate room, others counselled families at the bedside or nursing stations. All counsellors had a central role in explaining the MITS procedure to families in their local languages. Most sites did not use visual aids during the process, relying solely on verbal descriptions. In most sites, parents were approached within one hour of death. The time needed for decision making by families varied from a few minutes to 24 h. In most sites, extended family took part in the decision making. Because many parents wanted burial as soon as possible, counsellors ensured that MITS would be conducted promptly after receiving consent. Barriers to consent included decreased comprehension of information due to the emotional and psychological impact of grief. Moreover, having more family members engaged in decision-making increased the complexity of counselling and achieving consensus to consent for the procedure. While each site adapted their approach to fit the context, consistencies and similarities across sites were observed.