A pilot study to develop a brief question-based screening tool to identify higher-risk older drivers

Components of driving competency measurement in the elderly: A scoping review

Background: Iran will face the "aging Tsunami" phenomenon by the 2040s. Therefore, paying attention to the elderly's driving to maintain and promote their independence and quality of life on the one hand and paying attention to the dangers of driving by the elderly for road safety will be important. The purpose of this research was to determine the components of driving competency in the elderly.

Methods: The research has employed a scoping review. To this end, searches of scientific databases were conducted using keywords between 1990 and 2019. The process of selecting the documentation was-based on the PRISMA chart.

Results: In the first phase, 2769 records were found, and finally, 37 records met the inclusion criteria set for this study. The results indicated that 18 components were extracted that were classified into seven main categories including cognitive, sensory, motor, mental functions, and medications, diseases, and driving history.

Conclusion: Sensory, motor, and cognitive abilities are the most important components of elderly safe driving. Therefore, as age increases, chronic disease, multiple drug use, and subsequent problems increase. This can affect the ability to drive safely and can cause traffic injuries. Therefore, it is recommended to use the results of this research to design a suitable tool and model for assessing driving competency in the elderly.

Prospective Validation of a Screening Tool to Identify Older Adults in Need of a Driving Evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively validate and refine the 5-item "CRASH" screening tool for identifying older drivers needing a behind-the-wheel (BTW) test.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

Geriatric and internal medicine primary care clinics affiliated with a tertiary care hospital and a local BTW program.

PARTICIPANTS

Cognitively intact drivers aged 65 and older (N = 315).

MEASUREMENTS

Participants completed baseline questionnaire (including CRASH tool) and assessments and BTW test (evaluator blinded to questionnaire results) and participated in 1-month telephone follow-up. Analysis included descriptive statistics and examination of predictive ability of the CRASH tool to discriminate normal (pass) from abnormal (conditional pass or fail) on the BTW test, with logistic regression and CART techniques for tool refinement.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-six participants (84%) had a BTW test; of these, 17% had a normal rating and 83% an abnormal rating. Forty-five percent of those with an abnormal score were advised to limit driving under particular conditions. Neither the CRASH tool nor its individual component variables were significantly associated with the summary BTW score; in refined models with other variables, the best-performing tool had approximately 67% sensitivity and specificity for an abnormal BTW score. Most participants found the BTW test useful and were willing to pay a median of $50. At 1-month follow-up, no participants had stopped driving.

CONCLUSION

The CRASH screening tool cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice. Findings on older adults' perceived utility of the BTW test and the stability of driving patterns at 1-month follow-up could be useful for future research studies and for design of older driver programs.

Pain, distress, and anticipated recovery for older versus younger emergency department patients after motor vehicle collision

BACKGROUND

Motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) are the second most common injury mechanism resulting in emergency department (ED) visits by older adults. MVCs result in substantial pain and psychological distress among younger individuals, but little is known about the occurrence of these symptoms in older individuals. We describe the frequency of and characteristics associated with pain, distress, and anticipated time for physical and emotional recovery for older adults presenting to the ED after MVC in comparison to younger adults.

METHODS

In-person interviews were conducted for adults presenting to one of eight EDs after MVC without an obvious fracture or injury requiring admission as part of two prospective studies. Pain severity was assessed using a 0-10 verbal scale. Distress was assessed using the Peritraumatic Distress Inventory (range 0-52). Patients were asked to estimate their expected time for physical and emotional recovery; these responses were dichotomized to <30 or ≥30 days. ED pain and distress and associations between patient and collision characteristics and ED pain and distress were examined for patients age 65 years and older and patients age 18 to 64.

RESULTS

Older (n = 96) and younger (n = 943) adults had the same mean pain scores (5.5, SD 2.5 vs. 5.5, SD 2.4). Distress scores were lower in older than in younger adults (15.5, SD 9 vs. 19.2, SD 10). A higher percentage of older adults than younger adults had an anticipated time to physical recovery ≥30 days (41%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 28%-55% vs. 11%, 95% CI 9%-13%). Similarly, older adults were more likely to have an anticipated time for emotional recovery ≥30 days (45%, 95% CI 35%-55% vs. 17%, 95% CI 15%-20%). Older adults were less likely than younger adults to have moderate or severe neck pain (score ≥4) (25%, 95% CI 23% to 41% vs. 54%, 95% CI 48% to 60%) or back pain (31%, 95% CI 23% to 46% vs. 56%, 95% CI 51 to 62%) but more likely to have moderate or severe chest pain (42%, 95% CI 32% to 50% vs. 20%, 95% CI 16 to 23%). Pre-MVC depressive symptoms and pain catastrophizing were positively associated with pain and distress in both older and younger adults.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, older adults who presented to the ED after MVC experienced similar pain severity as younger patients and less distress but were more likely to estimate their times for physical and emotional recovery to be 30 days or more. Increased emergency provider awareness of acute pain and distress symptoms among older patients experiencing MVC may improve outcomes for these patients.

Driving Self-Restriction and Age: A Study of Emergency Department Patients

BACKGROUND

Driving self-restriction is a well-documented among older drivers but might also occur among younger drivers. Little is known about the driving patterns of emergency department (ED) patients, who may be a high-risk population for motor vehicle crashes (MVCs). We sought to compare the driving patterns and MVCs of younger and older adult ED patients in order to inform development of injury prevention interventions in EDs.

METHODS

We surveyed English-speaking younger adult (age 25-64) and older adult (age ≥65) ED patients, excluding non-drivers and those who were cognitively-impaired or too sick to participate. We compared drivers by age group and used logistic regression with adjustment for driving frequency to examine factors associated with driving self-restriction.

RESULTS

Of those eligible, 82% (n=178) of younger adult and 91% (n=134) of older adult patients participated; approximately half were women. Similar proportions of younger and older adult patients reported driving everyday/almost everyday (80%) but also self-restricting driving in inclimate weather (48%), heavy traffic (27%), in unfamiliar places (21%), when travelling with passengers (1.6%) or when alone (1.3%). Fewer younger adult than older adult patients avoided driving at night (22% versus 49%) or on highways (6.7% versus 26%). In multivariable logistic regression, factors significantly associated self-imposed driving restriction in ≥1 driving situation were female gender (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.40; 95%CI 1.42-4.05) and ever feeling "confused, nervous or uncomfortable" while driving (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.03-3.39). There was a non-significant trend for differences in proportions between younger adult (11%) and older adult (6.8%) drivers reporting ≥1 MVC as a driver in the past 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar proportions of younger and older adult ED patients self-restrict driving, albeit in different situations, which has implications for behavioral interventions for injury prevention and for education of patients and medical providers.