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.
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.
Authors: Teresa J Shafer; Lawrence L Schkade; Roger W Evans; Kevin J O'Connor; William Reitsma Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 8.086