Epilepsy and motor vehicle driving--a symposium held in Québec City, November 1998

Bias in counseling of seizure patients following a transient impairment of consciousness: differential adherence to driver fitness guidelines

PURPOSE

To determine primary care physicians' counseling as well as patients' driving behaviors following seizure and non-seizure events impairing consciousness in the community.

METHODS

Patients attending a rapid-referral first seizure clinic were entered into the study if they were deemed medically-unfit to drive according to national guidelines for driving licensure: had experienced a seizure or an unexplained episode of lost consciousness, and had a valid driver's license at the time of their index event. Risk of physician counseling in the community regarding driving cessation in the interval between initial primary care assessment and neurological consultation was examined as a primary outcome, and patient driving cessation was examined as a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

106 of 192 (55%) patients attending clinic met guideline criteria requiring driver fitness counseling in the primary care community, and 89 patients (46%) were deemed medically-unfit to drive following the initial specialist consultation appointment. Among medically unfit driver cases, 73% were ultimately deemed to have experienced a seizure and 27% had experienced a non-seizure event (e.g. syncope, PNES). Driver fitness counseling was more likely for seizure than non-seizure cases (unadjusted odds ratio: 4.14, p<0.05), as was patient driving cessation (5.10, p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Physician compliance with clinical practice guidelines appears strongly biased when counseling about driving following an episode of transient impairment in consciousness. The failure of the primary care medical community to apply driver fitness counseling equitably to both seizure and non-seizure drivers may have ramifications upon public safety or conversely disease-related quality-of-life.

Transport, driving and ageing

Transport is the invisible glue that holds our lives together, an under-recognized contributor to economic, social and personal well-being. In public health terms, the medical profession had previously allowed itself to focus almost exclusively on the downsides of transport. However, the research basis for transport, driving and ageing is steadily evolving and has important academic and practical considerations for gerontologists and geriatricians. For gerontologists, teasing out the critical role of transport in the health and well-being of older people is an imperative, as well as the key challenges inherent in transitioning from driving to not driving. The safe crash record of a group with significant multi-morbidity allows us to focus on the remarkable strategic and adaptive skills of older people. From a policy perspective, strictures on older drivers are an exemplar of institutionalized ageism. For geriatricians, a key challenge is to develop strategies for including transportation in our clinical assessments, formulating effective strategies for assessment of medical fitness to drive, incorporating enabling techniques, giving due consideration to ethical and legal aspects, and developing and promoting multi-modality and alternative transportation options.

Epilepsy and driving: considerations on how eligibility should be decided

Although few neurologists are formally trained in traffic medicine, they are frequently asked to assess whether a patient is medically fit to drive. For patients with epilepsy, the physician must assess the risk of the patient having a seizure while driving, and decide what is an acceptable risk. The legislation on this subject is aiming at finding a reasonable balance between two important considerations: public safety and a patient's individual need to drive. For the neurologist to explain and put into practice the legislation may be a demanding task and a challenge to the doctor-patient alliance. The decision on driving capability should be tailored to the individual patient and based on careful evaluation and informed judgement. In Norway, to qualify for a driver's license, a seizure-free interval of at least 12 months is currently required for group 1 drivers (passenger cars), whereas group 2 drivers (heavy motor vehicles, commercial driving) must have been seizure-free for at least 10 years and not have experienced epileptic seizures from the age of 18 years. Norwegian physicians are obliged to report patients with seizures to driving authorities, although this is an unpopular rule. In reviewing the available literature, it is apparent that despite there being relatively few sound studies, the risks of car accidents among persons with epilepsy may previously have been overestimated.

Frequency of physician counseling and attitudes toward driving motor vehicles in people with epilepsy: comparing a mandatory-reporting with a voluntary-reporting state

Driving for the person with epilepsy (PWE) remains an important issue. Requirements for reporting PWE to driving authorities vary across the United States. We studied the prior experiences of PWE regarding counseling for driving in a reporting state (37% in New Jersey) and a nonreporting state (52% in Arizona). A prospective voluntary anonymous survey was conducted among patients with new-onset epilepsy at two epilepsy referral centers. Subjects were queried about prior interactions with health care professionals regarding attitudes toward and knowledge of driving regulations. Practitioners caring for PWE are in the position to provide advice and counsel regarding driving regulations. Fifty percent or fewer subjects were appropriately counseled, regardless of residence requirements. PWE felt they were honest with their physician and 10% of subjects have driven against medical advice. A performance gap exists in the appropriate counseling regarding driving for PWE that has potentially significant safety and legal implications.

A comparison of physicians' attitudes and beliefs regarding driving for persons with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this survey was to compare attitudes and opinions regarding driving restrictions for persons with epilepsy (PWE) between internal medicine and general practice physicians and neurologists.

METHOD

A questionnaire aimed at eliciting physicians' perspectives related to driving with epilepsy was developed that focused on physicians' experiences and opinions with respect to driving issues for PWE. Three groups of physician subspecialties were targeted based on the likelihood of persons with epilepsy in their practice: neurologists, family practice physicians, and internal medicine practitioners. Questions asked about driving with controlled and uncontrolled seizures, predictable auras, nocturnal seizures, seizures without loss of consciousness, patient reporting, seizure-related accidents, and patient justifications for driving.

RESULTS

Error rates were high with respect to knowledge of state reporting practices, especially among family practitioners and internal medicine physicians. Family practitioners and internists were less likely than neurologists to support driving for people with uncontrolled seizures under specific conditions and more likely to support a minimum seizure-free period before issuing a driver's license and mandatory reporting of seizure information. Physicians who thought they were from states with mandatory reporting were more supportive of mandatory reporting of seizure information and setting a minimum seizure-free period before a driver's license is issued. Physicians having fewer patients with epilepsy were more likely to oppose driving in persons with intractable seizures.

CONCLUSION

Nonneurologists have more restrictive beliefs regarding driving for PWE, who are in fact allowed to drive in many states. Nonneurologists, in particular, demonstrated poor knowledge of state reporting requirements for PWE. The data from this study support a significant effort to promote education of all physicians regarding state regulations and aspects of epilepsy related to driving.

Epilepsy-related Injuries

Only one prospective, controlled study has compared the risk of accidental injury in persons with epilepsy to controls without seizures. A mildly increased risk in the epilepsy group was found, predominantly due to injuries that result directly from a seizure. With regard to injury type, this study found significantly higher rates of only head and soft tissue injury; however, most injuries were minor. Several retrospective, population-based studies have suggested increased rates of more serious injury types. Submersion injury has a high mortality; the risk of submersion in children with epilepsy is 7.5-13.9 fold higher than in the general population. The risk of fracture is elevated approximately twofold, either resulting directly from seizure-induced injury or predisposed by drug-induced reduction in bone mineral density. Burns due to seizures account for between 1.6% and 3.7% of burn unit admissions. The risk of motor vehicle accidents in drivers with epilepsy also appears increased, albeit marginally. Several factors predispose to a higher risk of injury among those with epilepsy. Seizures resulting in falls increase the risk of concussion and other injuries. Higher seizure frequency, lack of a prolonged seizure-free interval, comorbid attention deficit disorder, or cognitive handicap may also increase the risk of injury. While some restrictions are necessary to protect the safety of the person with epilepsy, undue limitations may further limit achievement of independence. Given the high morbidity and mortality of submersion injury, those with active epilepsy should bathe or swim only with supervision; however, showering is a reasonable option. Appropriate vitamin D and calcium supplementation and periodic measurement of bone mineral density in those at risk for osteopenia are recommended.

Neurological emergencies as causes of accidents

OBJECTIVES

A large number of people throughout Europe are involved in accidents every year. Neurological emergencies as the underlying cause of accidents are poorly investigated. This retrospective chart review study was performed to evaluate the incidence of such events.

METHODS

We retrospectively screened the records of the database of our physician-staffed emergency medical service for a 2-year period of time for patients involved in accidents suspicious of having had a neurological incident leading to the accident. The admission diagnoses of these records were compared with the final diagnosis as taken from the hospital records. Additional demographical (gender, age, time of accident) and medical (Glasgow Coma Scale, Injury Severity Score, National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics-Score) data were evaluated and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1545 records associated with accidents were screened, identifying 110 (7.1%) cases eligible for analysis. Fifty-four patients had seizure (49.1%), 7 stroke (6.3%) and 2 suffered from intracerebral hemorrhage (1.8%). The admission diagnosis made by the physician was confirmed in 91.8% of the cases. Accidents with concomitant neurological event happened significantly more frequent between 9 and 12 am. No differences were observed in demographic or medical data for patients with acute neurological event prior to the accident.

CONCLUSION

Neurological emergencies, particularly epilepsy, stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage are causes of accidents which have to be considered more often than expected and happen most frequently in the morning. Other demographical and medical data provide no additional information for emergency medical personnel to specifically identify such patients. Nevertheless, emergency physicians seem to be highly skilled in finding the correct diagnosis.

The electroencephalogram as a screening tool in pilot applicants

The electroencephalogram (EEG) is used to screen pilot candidates for professional licensure irrespective of medical history in many European countries; applicants with paroxysmal abnormalities are excluded. The aim is to reduce the risk of later seizures in flight, which may cause accident or death, but there is no clear evidence that EEG screening can lead to any significant risk reduction. This is partly due to the low predictive value of the EEG, the low risk of seizure in healthy young adults, and the low risk of commercial aircraft accidents. Later-onset seizures, unrelated to the results of earlier screening, cannot be predicted or prevented by screening. Some benefit cannot be excluded, but may be difficult to demonstrate in prospective studies. Specialized screening of targeted populations, such as for photosensitivity in helicopter pilot candidates, may be justifiable; prospective studies with standardized recording and interpretation protocols are needed to assess this.

The impact of subclinical epileptiform discharges on complex tasks and cognition: relevance for aircrew and air traffic controllers

Subtle seizures consisting of brief alteration of consciousness with or without automatisms may go unnoticed in daily life, but can be detected more easily with electroencephalographic (EEG)/video recordings. Generalized and partial epileptiform EEG discharges can nevertheless be subclinical (subclinical epileptiform discharges, SEDs). When appropriate complex tasks are presented, it has been shown that even very short SEDs of 0.5 second disrupt cognition. In daily life this has been shown during automobile driving: half of the subjects showed significant deviations in lateral position of the car during SEDs and made more errors in an attention task while driving. Individual differences in the cognitive effects of SEDs are, however, striking and may be partly due to interaction between level of performance and frequency of spontaneous EEG discharges, as has been shown in another driving study: about 75% of subjects showed suppression of SEDs by driving, which is a combination of sensory, mental, and motor activity. Not only can SEDs negatively influence performance, but in some cases mental activities can provoke epileptiform discharges. It is important to realize that these mechanisms exist and that only detailed EEG studies can clarify these issues. In air traffic controllers, brief alterations of consciousness and cognitive impairment have occurred but cannot be accepted for safety reasons; therefore, Eurocontrol has used the EEG as a screening tool since 1995.