Skip to main content

An Advance Directive for When Driving Becomes Unsafe


One of the tougher challenges in a busy clinical encounter is the older driver who is potentially unsafe. While clinicians may screen for unsafe driving using the tools previously reviewed here in GeriPal, the encounter involves a delicate dance between maintaining patient independence and protecting patient safety, as well as public safety. When a patient appears unsafe, a recommendation against driving should be made and at times a formal reporting to authorities of suspected unsafe driving is necessary.

But what happens after you make a formal recommendation of no driving? A recent New England Journal of Medicine article provides a pretty good look into the impact of a no driving recommendation.

The authors examined the impact of formal reporting of a no driving recommendation in Ontario where patients had easy access to medical services and a data reporting system that could link to emergency room records. Ontario's reporting system began paying providers for completing a warning report in 2006, thus leading to a rise in referrals. Patients who received a warning over a 4 year interval were included in the study. The incidence of emergency room visits for motor vehicle accidents in the year before referral was compared to the incidence after referral for each individual patient in a self-matched cross-over design. The result? They found a 45% reduction in the annual rate of crashes per 1000 patients after the warning (4.76 vs. 2.73).  In other words, if you told 1000 patients they were unsafe to drive, you would prevent 2 accidents.

A warning to stop driving was also associated with some potential harms. Patients warned to stop driving had greater emergency room visits for depression and made fewer visits to the referring doctor than the year before. 10% of patients made no visits the following year despite having made at least 2 visits the year prior.

So here's the rub: You can reduce accidents with a recommendation to stop driving but you can cause harm. The key is maintaining a therapeutic relationship. Be sure to offer good alternatives to driving when public transportation is not an option. Work with family members to construct a list of responsibilities to help the patient overcome the no driving limitations.

So are you as a clinician, avoiding having these difficult conversations? Here’s a novel idea for you: An advance directive for driving. I first heard about this concept on NPR’s Morning Edition's segment titled "When Seniors Hang Up the Keys." Dr. Marian Betz an Emergency Room physician at the University Colorado proposed the concept. (audio here) The point is to designate a trusted individual to start the conversation about driving when driving becomes hazardous.

As part of your advanced care planning conversations consider asking, 'who would you trust to help you if you could no longer drive safely?'

by: Paul Tatum (@doctatum)

Comments

Leslie Kernisan said…
Sounds like a great idea! The NPR story mentions that Dr. Betz has developed this driving advance directive tool. Does anyone know where one can get a copy, for clinical use?
Our New York Times blog, the New Old Age, last year covered a voluntary stop-driving contract developed by a former Ohio state trooper, who had made one too many visits to homes to tell families that a loved one had been killed or injured in a crash. Often an older driver was involved. Form is downloadable. http://nyti.ms/W6JWdK

Popular posts from this blog

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Does “compassionate deception” have a place in palliative care?

by: Olivia Gamboa (@Liv_g_g)

There is broad consensus in the medical community that lying to patients is unethical.  However, in the care of patients with dementia, the moral clarity of this approach blurs.  In her recent New Yorker article, “The Memory House,”  Larissa MacFarquhar provides an excellent portrait of the common devices of artifice, omission and outright deception that are frequently deployed in the care of patients with dementia.  She furthermore explores the historical and ethical underpinnings of the various approaches used in disclosing (or not) information to patients living with dementia.

Ms. MacFarquhar introduces the idea of “compassionate deception,” or the concept that withholding truths, or even promoting outright falsehoods, is a reasonable and even ethical choice for those caring for patients with dementia.  To the extent that it helps a person with dementia feel happier and calmer, allowing them to believe in a gentler reality (one in which, say, their spo…