Literature DB >> 23486817

Accuracy of the DriveABLE cognitive assessment to determine cognitive fitness to drive.

Allen R Dobbs1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of the DriveABLE In-Office cognitive assessment in predicting cognitively impaired drivers' performance on the DriveABLE On-Road Evaluation (DORE).
DESIGN: Retrospective study comparing data from DriveABLE In-Office cognitive assessment outcomes with DORE outcomes.
SETTING: Nineteen of the locations in North America providing the DriveABLE assessment between the years 2007 and 2010. PARTICIPANTS: Database records from 3662 patients (2639 men, mean age 74.1 years, range 18 to 99 years of age; 1023 women, mean age 73.5 years, range 18 to 94 years of age) with suspected or confirmed cognitive impairment. All patients were referred for DriveABLE evaluation and received both the In-Office cognitive assessment and, regardless of the In-Office test results, the DORE. This is a subset of the database because typically the DriveABLE In-Office cognitive assessment serves as the cognitive assessment and only those whose results are in the indeterminate range go on to complete the road test (ie, DORE). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy of the In-Office assessment for predicting the outcome of the DORE.
RESULTS: For the total sample, the error rate for predicting actual performance on the road test was 1.7% for pass predictions and 5.6% for fail predictions. Notably, these low error rates were consistent across the 4 years. On the basis of performance on the In-Office cognitive assessment, pass or fail decisions could have been made for more than half of the referrals, reducing the need to take dangerous drivers on the road and reducing the cost of the assessment process for patients and the system.
CONCLUSION: The accuracy of the DriveABLE In-Office cognitive assessment was evaluated in the context of normal clinical referral processes, with a large sample of referrals during a 4-year period and from multiple sites. The high and stable accuracy rates provide the evidence physicians need to be confident in using the recommendations from the DriveABLE cognitive evaluation to assist them in making evidence-based decisions about their patients' ability to continue driving.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23486817      PMCID: PMC3596225     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Fam Physician        ISSN: 0008-350X            Impact factor:   3.275


  7 in total

Review 1.  Driving and dementia: a review of the literature.

Authors:  S Lloyd; C N Cormack; K Blais; G Messeri; M A McCallum; K Spicer; S Morgan
Journal:  Can J Occup Ther       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 1.614

2.  The relationship between neuropsychological functioning and driving ability in dementia: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mark A Reger; Robert K Welsh; G Stennis Watson; Brenna Cholerton; Laura D Baker; Suzanne Craft
Journal:  Neuropsychology       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.295

3.  Assessment of older drivers: relationships among on-road errors, medical conditions and test outcome.

Authors:  Marilyn Di Stefano; Wendy Macdonald
Journal:  J Safety Res       Date:  2003

Review 4.  Which older patients are competent to drive? Approaches to office-based assessment.

Authors:  David B Hogan
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  A comparative approach to identify unsafe older drivers.

Authors:  A R Dobbs; R B Heller; D Schopflocher
Journal:  Accid Anal Prev       Date:  1998-05

6.  Evaluating the driving competence of dementia patients.

Authors:  A R Dobbs
Journal:  Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.703

Review 7.  Clinical utility of office-based cognitive predictors of fitness to drive in persons with dementia: A systematic review.

Authors:  Frank J Molnar; Akhilesh Patel; Shawn C Marshall; Malcolm Man-Son-Hing; Keith G Wilson
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.562

  7 in total
  5 in total

1.  Failure to predict on-road results.

Authors:  Michel Bédard; Sylvain Gagnon; Isabelle Gélinas; Shawn Marshall; Gary Naglie; Michelle Porter; Mark Rapoport; Brenda Vrkljan; Bruce Weaver
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 3.275

2.  Flawed conclusion.

Authors:  Robert Gifford
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Impairments in Cognitive Control Using a Reverse Visually Guided Reaching Task Following Stroke.

Authors:  Catherine R Lowrey; Sean P Dukelow; Stephen D Bagg; Benjamin Ritsma; Stephen H Scott
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 4.895

4.  Cut-off point for the trail making test to predict unsafe driving after stroke.

Authors:  Seong Youl Choi; Jae Shin Lee; Young Ju Oh
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2016-07-29

5.  Usefulness of the driveABLE cognitive assessment in predicting the driving risk factor of stroke patients.

Authors:  Seong Youl Choi; Doo Han Yoo; Jae Shin Lee
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2015-10-30
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.