Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMorris, Nicholas A
dc.contributor.authorZimmerman, Eli E
dc.contributor.authorPozner, Charles N
dc.contributor.authorHenderson, Galen V
dc.contributor.authorMilligan, Tracey A
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-23T14:43:01Z
dc.date.available2020-10-23T14:43:01Z
dc.date.issued2020-09-25
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10713/13916
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Significant variation exists in determining brain death despite an expectation of competence for all neurology residents. In addition, family discussions regarding brain death are challenging and may influence organ donation. Methods: We developed two simulations of increasing complexity for PGY 2 and PGY 3 neurology residents. High-fidelity mannequins were used to simulate patients; standardized actors portrayed family members. In the first simulation, residents determined brain death and shared this information with a grieving family. In the second simulation, residents determined brain death in a more complicated scenario, requiring ancillary testing and accurate result interpretation. Following the determination, residents met with a challenging family. The residents worked with an interdisciplinary team and responded to the family's emotions, used active listening skills, and supported the family through next steps. Results: Twelve residents completed the simulations. Prior to the simulation, three (25%) residents felt comfortable discussing a brain death diagnosis; following the simulation, eight (67%) residents felt comfortable/very comfortable discussing brain death. Prior to the simulation, eight (67%) residents stated they knew prerequisites for performing a brain death examination and seven (58%) agreed they knew indications for ancillary testing; these numbers increased to 100% following the simulation. The number of residents who felt comfortable performing the brain death exam increased from five (42%) to 10 (83%). Discussion: This simulation of determining brain death and leading difficult family meetings was well-received by neurology residents. Further work should focus on the effects of simulation-based education on practice variation and organ donation consent rates.en_US
dc.description.urihttps://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10978en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherAssociation of American Medical Collegesen_US
dc.relation.ispartofMedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resourcesen_US
dc.rights© 2020 Morris et al.en_US
dc.subjectBrain Deathen_US
dc.subjectCommunicationen_US
dc.subjectCommunication Skillsen_US
dc.subjectCritical Care Medicineen_US
dc.subjectNeurologyen_US
dc.subjectNeurosurgeryen_US
dc.subjectNurse/Nurse Practitioneren_US
dc.subjectPhysicianen_US
dc.subjectPhysician Assistanten_US
dc.subjectRespiratory Therapisten_US
dc.subjectSimulationen_US
dc.subjectStandardized Patienten_US
dc.subjectSurgeryen_US
dc.titleBrain Death Determination: An Interprofessional Simulation to Determine Brain Death and Communicate with Families Focused on Neurology Residents.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10978
dc.identifier.pmid33005731
dc.source.volume16
dc.source.beginpage10978
dc.source.endpage
dc.source.countryUnited States


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record