Skip Navigation


BJA Advance Access originally published online on March 19, 2004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
92/5/633    most recent
aeh108v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bell, M. D. D.
Right arrow Articles by Murphy, P. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bell, M. D. D.
Right arrow Articles by Murphy, P. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2004, Vol. 92, No. 5 633-640
© 2004 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Clinical Investigations

Brainstem death testing in the UK—time for reappraisal?{dagger}

M. D. D. Bell*, E. Moss and P. G. Murphy

Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The General Infirmary at Leeds, Great George Street, Leeds LS1 3EX, UK

*Corresponding author. E-mail: dominic.bell@leedsth.nhs.uk
{dagger}This article is accompanied by Editorial I.

Background. A diagnosis of brainstem death in the UK is based on clinical assessment rather than technical investigations, but is considered rigorous enough to be legally synonymous with death.

Methods. A questionnaire in five sections concerning clinician details, initiation of support, criteria for testing, conduct of the tests, and the process of organ donation, was sent to all members of the Neuroanaesthesia Society.

Results. The survey reveals evidence of failure to apply existing guidelines accurately and a wide variation in practice where the recommendations are not specific.

Conclusions. In an era of scrutiny of medical process, it is timely to consider whether the current guidelines should be revisited. Clarification of the approach to biochemical derangement, and the role of confirmatory tests when the residual effect of sedative agents cannot be excluded, are two areas worthy of debate.

Br J Anaesth 2004; 92: 633–40


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
G. R. Park
Editorial I: Death and its diagnosis by doctors
Br. J. Anaesth., May 1, 2004; 92(5): 625 - 628.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.