Testing the brain death testers

Simulation-Based Training Closes Competency Gap in Brain Death Determination

Brain death determination is "the diagnosis we cannot get wrong,” warned Nicholas Morris, MD, associate professor of neurology and director of the neurocritical care fellowship program at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. “It’s literally a life-and-death mistake if you make an error.”

Yet an interim analysis of an ongoing, multicenter study presented in April at the AAN Annual Meeting in Chicago suggests that most neurology trainees arrive at the simulation lab woefully underprepared to perform it, and that a rigorous, simulation-based, mastery learning curriculum can reliably close that gap.

In preliminary results from the study, neurology residents and neurocritical care fellows scored a mean of just 51.4 percent on a pretest assessment of brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) determination skills, well below the curriculum's minimum passing score (MPS) of 89 percent. After completing an online didactic course offered through the Neurocritical Care Society (NCS), participants improved to a mean of 81.2 percent, but it was only after a session of mentored deliberate practice in the simulation center that scores reached a mean of 97.9 percent, with all but one of the 18 people who completed the curriculum achieving the MPS.

"What we really want to do is make sure that we are training our learners to the very highest standards so that when they get out into independent practice, we can be confident that they have mastered this skill,” said Dr. Morris, the study’s presenting author.

The study, which began enrolling participants in August 2025 and remains ongoing, uses a pretest-posttest design across more than a dozen institutions. Trainees are randomized to one of three simulated BD/DNC cases as a pretest and then complete the NCS online brain death determination course and undergo a second simulation assessment. Those who have not yet passed engage in deliberate practice with a facilitator until they achieve competency.

Performance is scored using a checklist developed through a Delphi process involving the authors of the 2023 AAN/AAP Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria Consensus Guideline. Since the abstract was submitted, enrollment has grown substantially; Dr. Morris told Neurology Today that approximately 82 participants have now started the curriculum, and roughly 60 have completed post-testing.

The low pretest scores, while striking, did not surprise Dr. Morris, who noted that prior survey data published in Neurology have shown that even board-certified neurologists performing BD/DNC determinations in clinical practice sometimes skip critical steps, including the apnea test.

"There's a lot of intricacy to brain death determination, and our checklist reflects that," he said. "So many different things have to be done correctly and completely."

Gary Gronseth, MD, professor and chair of neurology at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City and a co-author of the 2023 BD/DNC guideline, agreed that the gap is both real and underappreciated.

"It's a very complex process,” said Dr. Gronseth, who was not involved in the study. “Conceptually, it seems straightforward, but it's extraordinarily detail-oriented. Many neurology residents rotate through neurocritical care, but there may not be a brain death case that comes to them, so they simply don't get exposed to it. That's the fundamental challenge for program directors."

The jump from post-didactic to post-deliberate practice scores—from 81 to nearly 98 percent—underscores a key distinction: knowledge and performance are not the same thing.

"There's always a difference between what you know and what you can actually do," Dr. Morris said. "The online course has a 100 percent multiple-choice test at the end, but passing a knowledge test doesn't prove you can perform the procedure. That's where the gap is."

"This isn't something we can address by having residents, or even board-certified neurologists, just take an online course and a test," Dr. Gronseth said. "It has serious implications not only for program directors, who need to be actively working to ensure residents get hands-on exposure, but for community-based neurologists in practice, who may encounter a brain death case only rarely and have no mechanism for maintaining competency. Do we need something analogous to ACLS, like a recertification program with simulation? That's a real and difficult question."

The simulation-based mastery learning model is resource-intensive, with each participant spending roughly three hours between the simulation assessments and the online course, plus additional time for deliberate practice and long-term follow-up. It may not be appropriate for all trainees equally, Dr. Morris acknowledged.

"If someone is going into neurocritical care and this will be a routine part of their practice, the investment is clearly worth it," he said. "If they're unlikely to ever be asked to do this, perhaps a less-intensive approach makes sense."

His group is exploring artificial intelligence-based feedback and virtual-reality platforms as potential lower-resource alternatives, though he believes some form of directly observed hands-on assessment will remain essential.

The study also served as the launching pad for CRESCENT, a new multicenter consortium focused on collaborative education research in neurology.

"What we've been able to achieve is a collaboration among multiple institutions to do education research in neurology, which I'm not sure has ever been done before at this scale," Dr. Morris said. He hopes it will provide the infrastructure to test other educational interventions across training programs nationwide.

"When this study is complete, I hope it will provide the impetus for all neurology programs to ensure that every resident receives formal training in brain death determination that includes hands-on experience, whether through supervised cases or simulation,” Dr. Gronseth said.

Disclosures: Dr. Morris’s institution has received research support from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). Dr. Morris has received compensation for serving as a webinar speaker for Kreg Therapeutics and serves as a non-compensated editorial board member for the AAN and the Neurocritical Care Society.

Gina Shaw

A Simulation-based Mastery Learning Curriculum to Assess and Ensure Competency in Brain Death/Death by Neurological Criteria Determination: Preliminary Results. Nicholas Morris, Amjad Elmashala, Matthew Bevers, Galina Gheihman, Jamie LaBuzetta, Tracey Fan, Shivani Ghoshal, Justine Cormier, Casey Albin, Brittany Lachance, Melissa Pergakis, Matthew Hoerth, Nina Massad, Jenna Ford, Jon Rosenberg, Hera Kamdar, Hannah Kirsch, Lauren Koffman, Xin Zhou1, Sarah Wahlster, Sean Marinelli, Stefanie Cappucci, Rachel Beekman, Reem El-Ghawanmeh, Ariane Lewis, David Greer, William McGaghie, Daniel Harrison. 2026 AAN Annual Meeting Abstract 4711


Objective:
To evaluate if simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) can achieve uniform competency among neurology trainees in brain death / death by neurological criteria (BD/DNC) determination.

Background:
The ACGME Milestones suggest that neurology trainees should be able to properly perform BD/DNC determination by graduation. Data on physician knowledge, comfort, and competency with performing BD/DNC determinations demonstrate opportunities for improvement. We hypothesized that SBML could close the gap between ACGME expectations and practice in BD/DNC determination.

Design/Methods:
In August 2025, we began enrolling in an ongoing multicenter pretest-posttest study of SBML. We randomized neurology trainees to one of three simulated cases of BD/DNC determination as a pretest, followed by didactic training (the Neurocritical Care Society online Brain Death Determination course). We assessed participants using a different randomly selected simulated case immediately after taking the course, and again after deliberate practice. We scored performance using a checklist derived from a Delphi process involving authors of 2023 BD/DNC Guidelines with a minimum passing score (MPS = 89%) derived from Angoff standard setting determined by members of UCNS and ACGME Neurocritical Care examination committees. We performed repeated measures ANOVA for comparison among those that completed the curriculum.

Results:
Thirty neurology residents (5 PGY-2, 14 PGY-3, 11 PGY-4) and five neurocritical care fellows have enrolled and 18 completed the curriculum (17 in progress). Eleven (31%) previously received training in BD/DNC determination, 24 (69%) previously observed a BD/DNC evaluation, and 14 (40%) previously performed a BD/DNC evaluation with supervision. Among the 18 that completed the curriculum, performance improved across assessments (pretest mean (SD) 51.4% (12.9%) vs. post-online course mean (SD) 81.2% (10.2%) vs post-deliberate practice mean (SD) 97.9% (3.5%), F (2,34) = 144.01, p < .001). All but one participant achieved the MPS.

Conclusions:
SBML achieved near uniform competency in BD/DNC determination skills among neurology trainees that completed the SBML curriculum.

Simulation-based Brain Death Determination Training for Neurology Residents (P5-5.025).Noelia Morales, Cesar Escamilla Ocanas, Gabriel Torrealba Acosta, Catherine Garcia, Lintu Ramachandran, and Mohammad Hirzallah. Neurology April 8, 2025 issue 104 (7_Supplement_1) 5569
https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000212451

Abstract

Objective:
N/A

Background:

Brain death determination is an essential skill every neurologist should have. Despite the availability of clear guidelines for brain death determination, there is significant variability in practice both, within the United States and internationally. Previous studies have shown neurology residents have limited exposure to brain death examination and typically do not perform this task independently. However, they are expected to be proficient in determining brain death by the end of residency.


Design/Methods:
A simulation-based brain death determination workshop was generated for second year neurology residents, and conducted for three consecutive years from 2022 to 2024. Two questionaries (Form A and B) were generated, each with 14 premises that evaluated different educational competencies on brain death determination guidelines.

The workshop was divided in two parts. The first part consisted of a 60 minute lecture given covering the above-mentioned competencies, based on the 2023 pediatric and adult BD/DNC consensus guideline by a neurocritical care attending. followed by a questionnaire.

Residents then teamed up in groups of 2. High fidelity mannequins were used to simulate patients in five different clinical scenarios. We asked teams to take turns leading each encounter. A debriefing session was conducted after each case to provide immediate feedback. After completing the simulations, the residents received the second questionnaire, ensuring it was a different version from the initial one. Questionnaire results had no identifiable information.

Results:
19 neurology residents completed the brain death determination workshop. 18 out of 19 demonstrated an improvement in performance following the completion of the workshop. Mean pre-workshop score was 63.68 % ± 17.80, while the mean post-workshop score increased to 89.71 % ± 9.4 (p<0.0001).

Conclusions:
Conducting a simulation-based workshop early during neurology training might help increase the level of confidence and proficiency performing a comprehensive brain death examination prior to the completion of residency.