Consensus Checklist and Passing Standard for Brain Death Competency

Standardizing Competency in Brain Death Determination

The determination of brain death, or death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC), is a profound clinical responsibility governed by detailed guidelines to ensure accuracy and consistency [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. However, while protocols define the steps of the procedure, a standardized, objective method for assessing a clinician's competency in performing it has been lacking. The use of structured expert consensus methods, such as the Delphi process, has been instrumental in defining best practices in other complex medical areas [9, 10]. A recent study now provides a rigorously developed framework to evaluate clinician readiness for this critical task, bridging the gap between knowing the guidelines and demonstrating the skill to apply them correctly [11].

Developing a Consensus-Based Assessment Tool

To create a reliable method for evaluating clinician performance, researchers set out to develop a comprehensive checklist, define non-negotiable critical actions, and establish a minimum passing standard for BD/DNC determination. The resulting tool is intended for formative and summative assessment of adult and pediatric critical care physicians, as well as other clinicians involved in the process. The study's methodology was a multi-stage, expert-driven process conducted via electronic surveys. First, the investigators employed a prespecified three-round modified Delphi consensus process. This technique involves iteratively surveying a panel of experts to systematically build and refine a list of items, with each round bringing the group closer to agreement on the most essential elements. Following the creation of the checklist, a separate panel used a modified Angoff standard setting process, a formal method where subject matter experts judge the difficulty of each item to collectively determine which actions are absolutely critical and to establish a defensible passing score.

Expert Panel Composition

The credibility of the assessment tool rests on the expertise of the two panels convened for its development. The initial Delphi panel, which defined the checklist items, consisted of 16 participants. This group was composed of key authors from the 2023 Pediatric and Adult BD/DNC Consensus Practice Guideline and the World Brain Death Project, ensuring the checklist aligns with the most current international standards. For the subsequent phase, a different panel of 13 participants was assembled for the Angoff standard setting. This group included members of the Neurocritical Care United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education examination committees. Their specific expertise in competency assessment was essential for translating the checklist into a valid evaluation tool by identifying the most critical actions and setting a rigorous, evidence-based passing standard for readiness for independent practice.

Key Components of the Assessment Checklist

The rigorous Delphi process yielded a final checklist of 98 unique items for the comprehensive assessment of BD/DNC determination. These items are logically structured to mirror the clinical workflow. The list includes 23 items for assessing prerequisites, which confirms that confounding conditions such as severe hypothermia or sedative effects have been excluded. It dedicates 28 items to the performance of the clinical examination, covering the evaluation of all relevant cranial nerve reflexes and motor responses. A further 36 items detail the steps for apnea testing, a cornerstone for demonstrating the absence of respiratory drive. Finally, 11 items address the use of ancillary testing, such as cerebral angiography or an electroencephalogram, for situations where the clinical examination or apnea test is inconclusive. From this comprehensive list, the Angoff panel designated seven specific items as critical actions. These are steps so vital that their incorrect performance or omission would pose a significant risk of an inaccurate diagnosis. The remaining 91 items were assigned average ratings to weigh their relative importance, creating a nuanced tool that distinguishes between essential knowledge and indispensable, high-stakes actions.

Establishing a Minimum Passing Standard and Clinical Utility

A key outcome of the study is the establishment of a clear benchmark for proficiency: the minimum passing score for an assessment that includes all noncritical items was set at 89%. This standard, along with the full checklist of critical and noncritical actions, provides a concrete framework for evaluating clinicians. The authors intend for these guideline-concordant items to be applied in simulated cases of BD/DNC determination for both adult and pediatric scenarios. This allows for the objective assessment of a clinician's readiness for independent practice, moving beyond subjective observation to a standardized, evidence-based evaluation. The primary clinical relevance of this work is its potential to mitigate the risk of inaccurate BD/DNC determination by ensuring clinicians are verifiably competent before performing this irreversible procedure. Furthermore, the researchers note that their systematic process for defining critical actions on a behavioral checklist is a model that can be replicated for simulation-based assessment of other high-stakes skills across critical care medicine.

References

1. Members AF, Camm AJ, Kirchhof P, et al. Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: The Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European Heart Journal. 2010. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq278

2. Habib G, Lancellotti P, Antunes MJ, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of infective endocarditis. European Heart Journal. 2015. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv319

3. Erbel R, Aboyans V, Boileau C, et al. 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases. European Heart Journal. 2014. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu281

4. M EP, Elliott P, Anastasakis A, et al. 2014 ESC Guidelines on diagnosis and management of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. European Heart Journal. 2014. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu284

5. Wender RC, Fontham ETH, Barrera E, et al. American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines. CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2013. doi:10.3322/caac.21172

6. Greer DM, Kirschen MP, Lewis A, et al. Pediatric and Adult Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria Consensus Guideline. Neurology. 2023. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000207740

7. Humbert M, Kovács G, Hoeper MM, et al. 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. European Respiratory Journal. 2022. doi:10.1183/13993003.00879-2022

8. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2013. Diabetes Care. 2012. doi:10.2337/dc13-s011

9. Mulhall P, Taggart L, Coates V, McAloon T. Using a Delphi survey to gain an international consensus on the challenges of conducting trials with adults with intellectual disabilities. Clinical Trials. 2019. doi:10.1177/1740774519887168

10. Lee AC, Cousens S, Darmstadt GL, et al. Care during labor and birth for the prevention of intrapartum-related neonatal deaths: a systematic review and Delphi estimation of mortality effect. BMC Public Health. 2011. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-s3-s10

11. Harrison DS, Dhruva N, Ford JL, et al. A Modified Delphi Consensus-Based Comprehensive Checklist and Angoff Standard for Assessment of Competency in Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria Determination. Critical Care Medicine. 2026. doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000007114