Table 4:

Impact of 2011 Pediatric Brain Death Determination Guidelines on Clinical Practice

	2013 Survey	2020 Survey	p value
Have you been involved in a case(s) where an inaccurate determination of brain death was made in an infant or child?			0.0002
Yes	44 (18.6%)	7 (4.9%)
No	193 (81.4%)	135 (95.1%)
If you answered yes, please explain why you believe this happened			0.3336
Examination was inaccurate or incomplete	14 (38.9%)	2 (28.6%)
A confounding variable was not excluded	12 (33.3%)	0 (0.0%)
Ancillary study was interpreted incorrectly	4 (11.1%)	2 (28.6%)
Apnea testing was not performed	3 (8.3%)	0 (0.0%)
Use of hypothermia	2 (5.6%)	0 (0.0%)
Initial observation period was too short	1 (2.8%)	0 (0.0%)
Other reason (i.e., unclear, use of ancillary rather than clinical exam, etc)	- a	3 (42.9%)
Have you been involved in a case(s) where applying the updated [2011] guidelines resulted in undue delay or confusion in the determination of brain death?			0.5424b
Yes	32 (13.6%)	20 (14.1%)
No	178 (75.4%)	111 (78.2%)
I do not know	26 (11.0%)	11 (7.7%)
If you answered yes, please explain why you believe this happened			0.206c
A confounding variable was not excluded	5 (33.3%)	2 (10.0%)
Ancillary study was interpreted incorrectly	3 (20.0%)	6 (30.0%)
Apnea testing was not performed	3 (20.0%)	2 (10.0%)
Examination was inaccurate or incomplete	2 (13.3%)	1 (5.0%)
Initial observation period was too short	2 (13.3%)	-
Other reason (i.e, observation period, two provider requirement, familial discord, presence of spinal reflexes. etc).	-	9 (45.0%)

^a8 (=44-12-1-14-3-4-2) is imputed for this missing value for p-value calculation.

^bComparison for proportion of participants that selected “No.”

^cComparison for proportion of participants that selected “Ancillary study was interpreted incorrectly.”