UNLABELLED: The aim of the study was to analyze the assessment procedure and identify predictors for the team decision when assessing fitness to drive a car after stroke. The material used was a retrospective data set with 200 stroke clients from Queen Elisabeth's Foundation Mobility Centre at Banstead UK. Fifty-four percent of clients were considered fit to continue driving where 9% could resume driving after car adaptation and training. Important factors for the outcome were vision (acuity and field), neuropsychological functions (divided attention), and track and/or on road test (reaction time, anticipation, speed, and positioning). Cognitive impairment was the main problem in those who failed the driving test and judged not fit for continued driving. Car adaptation, mainly comprising infrared transmitted secondary controls together with automatic transmission was recommended in 35% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: The contribution of different specialist groups appears to be necessary for an effective evaluation, but the assessment procedure can be done more cost-effectively by dividing it into two separate parts and removing certain subtests. The in-car track test is an important part of the assessment procedure with a high face validity and could in many cases make it unnecessary to perform in-traffic tests with unsafe drivers. Car adaptation is often necessary for a client with pronounced hemi-paresis and a full road test can for those only be performed after training the use of car controls.
UNLABELLED: The aim of the study was to analyze the assessment procedure and identify predictors for the team decision when assessing fitness to drive a car after stroke. The material used was a retrospective data set with 200 stroke clients from Queen Elisabeth's Foundation Mobility Centre at Banstead UK. Fifty-four percent of clients were considered fit to continue driving where 9% could resume driving after car adaptation and training. Important factors for the outcome were vision (acuity and field), neuropsychological functions (divided attention), and track and/or on road test (reaction time, anticipation, speed, and positioning). Cognitive impairment was the main problem in those who failed the driving test and judged not fit for continued driving. Car adaptation, mainly comprising infrared transmitted secondary controls together with automatic transmission was recommended in 35% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: The contribution of different specialist groups appears to be necessary for an effective evaluation, but the assessment procedure can be done more cost-effectively by dividing it into two separate parts and removing certain subtests. The in-car track test is an important part of the assessment procedure with a high face validity and could in many cases make it unnecessary to perform in-traffic tests with unsafe drivers. Car adaptation is often necessary for a client with pronounced hemi-paresis and a full road test can for those only be performed after training the use of car controls.