Literature DB >> 34386163

Effectiveness of simple interventions to remind eye doctors to educate glaucoma patients about the dangers of driving.

Adeline Low1, Sujaya Singh2, Ee Ling Ang3, Azida Juana Kadir4, Amir Samsudin5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A clinical audit to establish whether eye doctors achieve the benchmark in reminding glaucoma patients about the dangers of driving. After introducing two simple interventions, a follow-up audit was performed.
METHODOLOGY: Initially, we interviewed 85 patients with established glaucoma who underwent Humphrey visual field (HVF) testing and also reviewed their medical notes. We looked for documentation of their driving status, specifically whether those with bilateral visual field (VF) defects recalled being given advice about the dangers of driving and whether this was documented in the notes. After this initial audit, doctors were educated on the availability of guidelines on visual requirements for driving, and reminder adhesive labels were put on the front of medical notes of driving glaucoma patients. A follow-up audit was then performed on 95 different patients.
RESULTS: In the initial audit, none of the patients had their driving status recorded. Only 36% of drivers with bilateral VF defects recalled being advised of the dangers of driving, with no documentation of whether the advice was given to them. Following the interventions, documentation of driving status became 86%. All drivers with bilateral VF defects recalled being advised regarding the dangers of driving, with documentation of the advice being given recorded in 73% of the medical notes.
CONCLUSION: Eye doctors are inadequately identifying, advising, and documenting the dangers of driving in the medical notes of glaucoma patients with bilateral VF defects. This can be improved with simple interventions, such as the education of doctors and creating reminder labels, for the benefit of our glaucoma patients. © Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Driving; education; glaucoma; visual field

Year:  2021        PMID: 34386163      PMCID: PMC8346764          DOI: 10.51866/oa1147

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Malays Fam Physician        ISSN: 1985-2274


  7 in total

1.  How good are we at advising appropriate patients with glaucoma to inform the DVLA? A closed audit loop.

Authors:  N Puvanachandra; C Y Kang; J F Kirwan; M N Jeffrey
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Visual problems of new malaysian drivers.

Authors:  Am Haliza; Mms Md Muziman Syah; Mf Norliza
Journal:  Malays Fam Physician       Date:  2010-08-31

3.  Incidence of visual field loss in 20,000 eyes and its relationship to driving performance.

Authors:  C A Johnson; J L Keltner
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1983-03

4.  Glaucomatous visual field defect severity and the prevalence of motor vehicle collisions in Japanese: a hospital/clinic-based cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Takeshi Ono; Kenya Yuki; Ryo Asaoka; Keisuke Kouyama; Takayuki Abe; Sachiko Tanabe; Kazumi Fukagawa; Miki Uchino; Masaru Shimoyama; Yoko Ozawa; Naoki Ozeki; Daisuke Shiba; Kazuo Tsubota
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 1.909

5.  Staging glaucoma patient: why and how?

Authors:  Remo Susanna; Roberto M Vessani
Journal:  Open Ophthalmol J       Date:  2009-09-17

6.  Comparison of the monocular Humphrey Visual Field and the binocular Humphrey Esterman Visual Field test for driver licensing in glaucoma subjects in Sweden.

Authors:  Marcelo Ayala
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 2.209

Review 7.  Suitability of the Visual Field Index according to Glaucoma Severity.

Authors:  Marina Cc Sousa; Luis G Biteli; Syril Dorairaj; Jessica S Maslin; Mauro T Leite; Tiago S Prata
Journal:  J Curr Glaucoma Pract       Date:  2016-02-02
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.