Mark J Rapoport1,2, Justin N Chee3,4, David B Carr5, Frank Molnar6,7, Gary Naglie4,8, Jamie Dow9, Richard Marottoli10, Sara Mitchell3,4, Mark Tant11, Nathan Herrmann3,4, Krista L Lanctôt3,4, John-Paul Taylor12, Paul C Donaghy12, Sherrilene Classen13, Desmond O'Neill14. 1. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, FG37-2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada. mark.rapoport@sunnybrook.ca. 2. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. mark.rapoport@sunnybrook.ca. 3. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, FG37-2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada. 4. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Washington University St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. 6. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 7. The Bruyere Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 8. Baycrest Health Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada. 9. Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, Québec City, QC, Canada. 10. Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. 11. Belgian Road Safety Institute, Brussels, Belgium. 12. Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 13. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 14. Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this study was to update a national guideline on assessing drivers with dementia, addressing limitations of previous versions which included a lack of developmental rigor and stakeholder involvement. METHODS: An international multidisciplinary team reviewed 104 different recommendations from 12 previous guidelines on assessing drivers with dementia in light of a recent review of the literature. Revised guideline recommendations were drafted by consensus. A preliminary draft was sent to specialist physician and occupational therapy groups for feedback, using an a priori definition of 90% agreement as consensus. RECENT FINDINGS: The research team drafted 23 guideline recommendations, and responses were received from 145 stakeholders. No recommendation was endorsed by less than 80% of respondents, and 14 (61%) of the recommendations were endorsed by more than 90%.The recommendations are presented in the manuscript. The revised guideline incorporates the perspectives of consensus of an expert group as well as front-line clinicians who regularly assess drivers with dementia. The majority of the recommendations were based on evidence at the level of expert opinion, revealing gaps in the evidence and future directions for research.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this study was to update a national guideline on assessing drivers with dementia, addressing limitations of previous versions which included a lack of developmental rigor and stakeholder involvement. METHODS: An international multidisciplinary team reviewed 104 different recommendations from 12 previous guidelines on assessing drivers with dementia in light of a recent review of the literature. Revised guideline recommendations were drafted by consensus. A preliminary draft was sent to specialist physician and occupational therapy groups for feedback, using an a priori definition of 90% agreement as consensus. RECENT FINDINGS: The research team drafted 23 guideline recommendations, and responses were received from 145 stakeholders. No recommendation was endorsed by less than 80% of respondents, and 14 (61%) of the recommendations were endorsed by more than 90%.The recommendations are presented in the manuscript. The revised guideline incorporates the perspectives of consensus of an expert group as well as front-line clinicians who regularly assess drivers with dementia. The majority of the recommendations were based on evidence at the level of expert opinion, revealing gaps in the evidence and future directions for research.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical practice guidelines; Dementia; Driving; Knowledge translation
Authors: Mark J Rapoport; Nathan Herrmann; Frank J Molnar; Malcolm Man-Son-Hing; Shawn C Marshall; Ken Shulman; Gary Naglie Journal: CMAJ Date: 2007-09-11 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Janet M Duchek; David B Carr; Linda Hunt; Catherine M Roe; Chengjie Xiong; Kamini Shah; John C Morris Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jennifer D Davis; George D Papandonatos; Lindsay A Miller; Scott D Hewitt; Elena K Festa; William C Heindel; Brian R Ott Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: D Piersma; A B M Fuermaier; D de Waard; P P De Deyn; R J Davidse; J de Groot; M J A Doumen; R A Bredewoud; R Claesen; A W Lemstra; A Vermeeren; R Ponds; F Verhey; W H Brouwer; O Tucha Journal: Acta Neurol Belg Date: 2018-11-02 Impact factor: 2.396
Authors: Carol Sinnott; Tony Foley; Linda Horgan; Kathleen McLoughlin; Cormac Sheehan; Colin Bradley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 2.692