Janet Frith1, Helen Warren-Forward1, Isobel Hubbard2, Carole James1. 1. School of Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia. 2. School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: In Australia, all stroke survivors should not drive for four weeks and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) survivors should not drive for two weeks. This study investigates the provision of return-to-driving education in the acute hospital setting and the use of this education by a cohort of Australian patients who have experienced a mild stroke or TIA and who are discharged directly home from their acute hospital admission. METHODS: A medical record audit was conducted of stroke patients discharged home from a regional hospital in Australia. All audited patients were sent a post-discharge anonymous survey of their post-stroke driving behaviours. RESULTS: A total of 78 medical records were audited (32 women, 46 men; 15 TIA, 63 strokes). Mean age was 67.4 years (SD = 13.7, range 20-89 years). Only 27 (34.6%) patients had documented evidence that return-to-driving was discussed with them by a health professional, with only 10 (12.8%) having a restriction period documented. A total of 31 surveys were analysed (10 females, 21 males) and 20 participants had returned to driving. From 31 survivors of mild stroke/TIA, 21 recalled receiving advice on return-to-driving and seven resumed driving during the non-driving period of one month. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistencies exist in the documentation of return-to-driving management after acute stroke or TIA and it is unknown whether patients who lack documentation in their medical records were provided with education or not.
BACKGROUND/AIM: In Australia, all stroke survivors should not drive for four weeks and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) survivors should not drive for two weeks. This study investigates the provision of return-to-driving education in the acute hospital setting and the use of this education by a cohort of Australian patients who have experienced a mild stroke or TIA and who are discharged directly home from their acute hospital admission. METHODS: A medical record audit was conducted of strokepatients discharged home from a regional hospital in Australia. All audited patients were sent a post-discharge anonymous survey of their post-stroke driving behaviours. RESULTS: A total of 78 medical records were audited (32 women, 46 men; 15 TIA, 63 strokes). Mean age was 67.4 years (SD = 13.7, range 20-89 years). Only 27 (34.6%) patients had documented evidence that return-to-driving was discussed with them by a health professional, with only 10 (12.8%) having a restriction period documented. A total of 31 surveys were analysed (10 females, 21 males) and 20 participants had returned to driving. From 31 survivors of mild stroke/TIA, 21 recalled receiving advice on return-to-driving and seven resumed driving during the non-driving period of one month. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistencies exist in the documentation of return-to-driving management after acute stroke or TIA and it is unknown whether patients who lack documentation in their medical records were provided with education or not.