Petros Stamatelos1, Alexandra Economou2, Leonidas Stefanis1, George Yannis3, Sokratis G Papageorgiou4. 1. 1st Department of Neurology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Eginition Hospital, 72 Vas. Sofias Ave, 11528, Athens, Greece. 2. Department of Psychology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 3. School of Civil Engineering, Department of Transportation Planning and Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 4. 1st Department of Neurology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Eginition Hospital, 72 Vas. Sofias Ave, 11528, Athens, Greece. sokpapa@med.uoa.gr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Driving is a complex task requiring the integrity and the cooperation of cognition, motor, and somatosensory skills, all of which are impacted by neurological diseases. OBJECTIVE: Identification of neurologist's role when assessing fitness to drive of cognitively impaired individuals. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the guidelines/recommendations (G/Rs) regarding the evaluation of driving fitness of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or dementia. Emphasis was put on the neurological and neuropsychological aspects of the evaluation. RESULTS: Eighteen G/Rs were included in the review (9 national guidelines, 5 recommendation papers, 3 consensus statements, and 1 position paper). All G/Rs referred to drivers with dementia and 9/18 referred to drivers with MCI. A common approach among G/Rs is the initial trichotomization of patients in safe to drive, unsafe to drive, and undetermined cases, which are referred to a second-line evaluator. First-line evaluators are general practitioners in 10/18 G/Rs; second-line evaluators are neurologists in 7/18 G/Rs. Specific neuropsychological tests are proposed in 11/18 G/Rs and relative cut-off values in 7/18. The most commonly used tests are the MMSE, TMT, and CDT. A thorough neurological examination is proposed in only 1/18 G/R. CONCLUSION: Although extensive multi-disciplinary research has provided useful information for driving behavior of cognitively impaired individuals, we are still far from a widely accepted approach of driving ability evaluation in this increasing population. A comprehensive assessment from a multi-disciplinary team in which the neurologist plays a critical role seems to be required, although this has not yet been implemented in any G/Rs.
BACKGROUND: Driving is a complex task requiring the integrity and the cooperation of cognition, motor, and somatosensory skills, all of which are impacted by neurological diseases. OBJECTIVE: Identification of neurologist's role when assessing fitness to drive of cognitively impaired individuals. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the guidelines/recommendations (G/Rs) regarding the evaluation of driving fitness of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or dementia. Emphasis was put on the neurological and neuropsychological aspects of the evaluation. RESULTS: Eighteen G/Rs were included in the review (9 national guidelines, 5 recommendation papers, 3 consensus statements, and 1 position paper). All G/Rs referred to drivers with dementia and 9/18 referred to drivers with MCI. A common approach among G/Rs is the initial trichotomization of patients in safe to drive, unsafe to drive, and undetermined cases, which are referred to a second-line evaluator. First-line evaluators are general practitioners in 10/18 G/Rs; second-line evaluators are neurologists in 7/18 G/Rs. Specific neuropsychological tests are proposed in 11/18 G/Rs and relative cut-off values in 7/18. The most commonly used tests are the MMSE, TMT, and CDT. A thorough neurological examination is proposed in only 1/18 G/R. CONCLUSION: Although extensive multi-disciplinary research has provided useful information for driving behavior of cognitively impaired individuals, we are still far from a widely accepted approach of driving ability evaluation in this increasing population. A comprehensive assessment from a multi-disciplinary team in which the neurologist plays a critical role seems to be required, although this has not yet been implemented in any G/Rs.
Authors: Kenneth A Scott; Eli Rogers; Marian E Betz; Lilian Hoffecker; Guohua Li; Carolyn DiGuiseppi Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ganesh M Babulal; Sarah H Stout; Denise Head; David M Holtzman; Anne M Fagan; John C Morris; Catherine M Roe Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Dafne Piersma; Anselm B M Fuermaier; Dick de Waard; Ragnhild J Davidse; Jolieke de Groot; Michelle J A Doumen; Ruud A Bredewoud; René Claesen; Afina W Lemstra; Annemiek Vermeeren; Rudolf Ponds; Frans Verhey; Wiebo H Brouwer; Oliver Tucha Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 3.240