IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0163811.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Autopsy of Adult Patients Deceased in an Academic Hospital: Considerations of Doctors and Next-of-Kin in the Consent Process

Author

Listed:
  • Britt M Blokker
  • Annick C Weustink
  • M G Myriam Hunink
  • J Wolter Oosterhuis

Abstract

Introduction: Hospital autopsies, vanishing worldwide, need to be requested by clinicians and consented to by next-of-kin. The aim of this prospective observational study was to examine how often and why clinicians do not request an autopsy, and for what reasons next-of-kin allow, or refuse it. Methods: Clinicians at the Erasmus University Medical Centre were asked to complete a questionnaire when an adult patient had died. Questionnaires on 1000 consecutive naturally deceased adults were collected. If possible, missing data in the questionnaires were retrieved from the electronic patient record. Results: Data from 958 (96%) questionnaires was available for analysis. In 167/958 (17·4%) cases clinicians did not request an autopsy, and in 641/791 (81·0%) cases next-of-kin did not give consent. The most important reason for both clinicians (51·5%) and next-of-kin (51·0%) to not request or consent to an autopsy was an assumed known cause of death. Their second reason was that the deceased had gone through a long illness (9·6% and 29·5%). The third reason for next-of-kin was mutilation of the deceased’s body by the autopsy procedure (16·1%). Autopsy rates were highest among patients aged 30–39 years, Europeans, suddenly and/or unexpectedly deceased patients, and tissue and/or organ donors. The intensive care and emergency units achieved the highest autopsy rates, and surgical wards the lowest. Conclusion: The main reason for not requesting or allowing an autopsy is the assumption that the cause of death is known. This is a dangerous premise, because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Clinicians should be aware, and communicate with the next of kin, that autopsies not infrequently disclose unexpected findings, which might have changed patient management.

Suggested Citation

  • Britt M Blokker & Annick C Weustink & M G Myriam Hunink & J Wolter Oosterhuis, 2016. "Autopsy of Adult Patients Deceased in an Academic Hospital: Considerations of Doctors and Next-of-Kin in the Consent Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-13, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0163811
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163811
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163811
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163811&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0163811?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Britt M Blokker & Annick C Weustink & M G Myriam Hunink & J Wolter Oosterhuis, 2017. "Autopsy rates in the Netherlands: 35 years of decline," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-14, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0163811. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.