Prélèvements d’organes et décès médico-légaux

Delannoy, Yann; Averland, Benoit; Tournel, Gilles; Cornez, Raphaël; Pollard, J.; Hédouin, V.; Gosset, D.

doi:10.1016/j.annfar.2012.10.008

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, as more organs cross borders and as research in the field of organ donation extends internationally, there is an increased need for clarity and standardization between DI and ODO systems both within and between nations. Identifying unique practices such as the death notification portal and FIRST group in Nevada, the united hierarchy and training programs in Sweden, and the continuity of care for forensic donors in France prompts further innovation and potentially broader adoption (10,13,20,29,30). For countries not represented in this scoping review, interviews, surveys, and legislation review may identify additional opportunities to advance death investigation procedures in a manner that promotes deceased organ donation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most jurisdictions, the legal DI authorized organ donation while the medical DI played a consulting role. This was the case in Australia, France, the United Kingdom, and some states in the United States (11,13,15,23,28,29,30). Depending on the system, legal bodies may have relied completely on the medical opinion or they may have decided in opposition.…”

Section: ) Legally Trained DI Authority To Veto Medical Decisions To ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examining the decedent preorgan recovery or attending the organ recovery could facilitate both organ donation and death investigations when there were resources to support this approach. In France, the same DI examined the decedent in the ICU, during the organ recovery surgery, and at autopsy (13,29,30). Protocols from states such as New Jersey, Texas, and Tennessee indicated that DIs could not deny organ donation without attending organ recovery (2,12,17).…”

Section: ) DI Attendance At Organ Recovery As Neededmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Idiosyncrasies existed in the documentation, observation standards, and the legal role of the surgeon involved. In many jurisdictions, a copy of the operative note or postoperative report was sufficient for the investigation (1,12,27,(29)(30)(31)(32)(33). For example, in Sweden, DIs requested surgical reports if the donated organ was related to the cause of death (20).…”

Section: ) Surgeons Recording Specific DI Evidence During Organ Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following recovery, any surgical interventions or means of vascular access were left for autopsy (9). Similarly, French DIs had all records of resuscitation, surgical procedures, and other interventions via postoperative reports (29,30). Altogether, surgeons played a critical investigative role in the absence of a DI during recovery.…”

Section: ) Surgeons Recording Specific DI Evidence During Organ Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Intersection of Death Investigation and Organ Donation Systems: A Scoping Review

Cullip¹,

Sarti²,

Weiss³

et al. 2022

Academic Forensic Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Death investigators (DIs) such as coroners, medical examiners, and forensic pathologists play important and evolving roles in deceased organ donation. DIs communicate with organ donation organizations (ODOs) to gather case-specific information and release or restrict organs depending on the medicolegal requirements. This scoping review aims to identify the breadth of roles and decision-making processes that may facilitate or hinder deceased donation in DI cases. Methods: This study was conducted using a scoping literature review and subsequent thematic analysis. Results: Thirty-one eligible papers described 8 common themes with region-specific nuances. These include: 1) shared (ODO and DI) protocols for early communication around each case; 2) shared standards and education for death investigation practices related to organ donation; 3) DI support staff or teams to facilitate organ donation; 4) DI authority to order additional testing and imaging before organ recovery; 5) donation-specific legislation to enhance DI and/or ODO operations; 6) legally trained DI authority to veto medical decisions to proceed with organ donation; 7) DI attendance at organ recovery; and 8) surgeons recording specific DI evidence during organ recovery. Conclusion: These findings have cultural and resource-allocation implications and expose gaps in the international literature describing practices at the intersection of deceased organ donation and death investigation. A better understanding of the rationale and execution of various systems for DI and ODO cooperation may serve to advance both organ donation and death investigation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%