Assessing Fitness to Drive in Patients With Different Types of Dementia.

Dementia is a risk factor for unsafe driving. Therefore, an assessment strategy has recently been developed for the prediction of fitness to drive in patients with the Alzheimer disease (AD). The aim of this study was to investigate whether this strategy is also predictive of fitness to drive in patients with non-AD dementia, that is, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia, and dementia with Lewy bodies. Predictors were derived from 3 types of assessment: clinical interviews, neuropsychological tests, and driving simulator rides. The criterion was the pass-fail outcome of an official on-road driving assessment. About half of the patients with non-AD dementia (n=34) failed the on-road driving assessment. Neuropsychological assessment [area under the curve (AUC)=0.786] was significantly predictive of fitness to drive in patients with non-AD dementia, however, clinical interviews (AUC=0.559) and driving simulator rides (AUC=0.404) were not. The fitness-to-drive assessment strategy with the 3 types of assessment combined (AUC=0.635) was not found to significantly predict fitness to drive in non-AD dementia. Different types of dementia require different measures and assessment strategies.

Adherence to driving cessation advice given to patients with cognitive impairment and consequences for mobility.

BACKGROUND: Driving is related to social participation; therefore older drivers may be reluctant to cease driving. Continuation of driving has also been reported in a large proportion of patients with cognitive impairment. The aim of this study is to investigate whether patients with cognitive impairment adhere to driving cessation advice after a fitness-to-drive assessment and what the consequences are with regard to mobility. METHODS: Patients with cognitive impairment (n = 172) participated in a fitness-to-drive assessment study, including an on-road driving assessment. Afterwards, patients were advised to either continue driving, to follow driving lessons, or to cease driving. Approximately seven months thereafter, patients were asked in a follow-up interview about their adherence to the driving recommendation. Factors influencing driving cessation were identified using a binary logistic regression analysis. Use of alternative transportation was also evaluated. RESULTS: Respectively 92 and 79% of the patients adhered to the recommendation to continue or cease driving. Female gender, a higher Clinical Dementia Rating-score, perceived health decline, and driving cessation advice facilitated driving cessation. Patients who ceased driving made use of less alternative modes of transportation than patients who still drove. Nonetheless, around 40% of the patients who ceased driving increased their frequency of cycling and/or public transport use. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to the recommendations given after the fitness-to-drive assessments was high. Female patients were in general more likely to cease driving. However, a minority of patients did not adhere to driving cessation advice. These drivers with dementia should be made aware of the progression of their cognitive impairment and general health decline to facilitate driving cessation. There are large differences in mobility between patients with cognitive impairment. Physicians should discuss options for alternative transportation in order to promote sustained safe mobility of patients with cognitive impairment.

Speed characteristics of speed pedelecs, pedelecs and conventional bicycles in naturalistic urban and rural traffic conditions.

To assess the potential impact of the higher speeds of pedal-assisted bicycles on safety, this study compared conventional bicycles, pedelecs and speed pedelecs (hereafter called s-pedelecs) on mean speeds, speed variability, harsh braking events (decelerations > 2 m/s2), and mean speeds above the speed limit (MSAL) in rural and urban areas in the Netherlands Data were collected in daily traffic, while the legal maximum speed for speed-pedelecs was 25 km/h, and pedelecs and s-pedelecs shared the infrastructure with conventional bicycles. Data were collected, using two-wheelers equipped with accelerometers and GPS. Personality factors - sensation seeking and risk taking - were measured with surveys. Regular commuters used one of the three bicycle types for two weeks. Participant bias was intentionally included by allowing participants to select a bicycle type of their preference, resulting in 12 conventional bicycle riders (71 % women), 14 pedelec riders (67 % women) and 20 s-pedelec riders (25 % women). S-pedelecs were much faster than conventional bicycles, amounting to a speed difference with conventional bicycles of 10.4 km/h in urban areas (M =28.2 km/h vs. 17.8 km/h) and of 13.2 km/h in rural areas (M = 31.4 km/h vs. 18.2 km/h). The speed differences between pedelecs and conventional bicycles were much smaller: 2.3 km/h in urban areas (20.1 km/h vs 17.8 km/h) and 4 km/h in rural areas (22.2 km/h vs. 18.2 km/h). Compared to conventional bicycles, s-pedelecs varied their speed to a greater extent and also braked harshly more frequently, showing a greater need for speed adjustment. These adjustments were larger at higher speeds. In contrast, pedelecs did not differ from conventional bicycles on speed variation. MSAL for s-pedelec riders differed by gender. For men the MSAL was 87 % on urban sections and 91 % on rural sections. For women, the MSAL was lower, respectively 23 and 69 %. None of the personality factors were associated with speed variability, harsh braking or MSAL. However, sensation seeking was associated with higher mean speeds on all three bicycle types. To conclude, pedelecs and conventional bicycles are similar in speed patterns, whereas the speed patterns of s-pedelecs differ significantly from the former two. The safety implications are discussed.

Driving Difficulties Among Patients with Alzheimer's Disease and Other Neurodegenerative Disorders.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Neurodegenerative disorders impact fitness to drive of older drivers, but on-road driving studies investigating patients with different neurodegenerative disorders are scarce. A variety of driving errors have been reported in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), but it is unclear which types of driving errors occur most frequently. Moreover, patients with other neurodegenerative disorders than AD typically present with different symptoms and impairments, therefore different driving errors may be expected. METHODS: Patients with AD (n = 80), patients with other neurodegenerative disorders with cognitive decline (i.e., vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies/Parkinson's disease, n = 59), and healthy older drivers (n = 45) participated in a fitness-to-drive assessment study including on-road driving. RESULTS: Patients with AD performed significantly worse than healthy older drivers on operational, tactical, visual, and global aspects of on-road driving. In patients with AD, on-road measures were significantly associated with 'off-road' measures. Patients with neurodegenerative disorders other than AD showed large overlap in the types of driving errors. Several driving errors were identified that appear to be characteristic for patients with particular neurodegenerative disorders. CONCLUSION: Patients from each group of neurodegenerative disorders commonly display tactical driving errors regarding lane positioning, slow driving, observation of the blind spot, and scanning behavior. Several other tactical and operational driving errors, including not communicating with cyclists and unsteady steering, were more frequently observed in patients with non-AD neurodegenerative disorders. These findings have implications for on-road and 'off-road' fitness-to-drive assessments for patients with neurodegenerative disorders with cognitive decline.

Assessing fitness to drive-A validation study on patients with mild cognitive impairment.

OBJECTIVES: There is no consensus yet on how to determine which patients with cognitive impairment are able to drive a car safely and which are not. Recently, a strategy was composed for the assessment of fitness to drive, consisting of clinical interviews, a neuropsychological assessment, and driving simulator rides, which was compared with the outcome of an expert evaluation of an on-road driving assessment. A selection of tests and parameters of the new approach revealed a predictive accuracy of 97.4% for the prediction of practical fitness to drive on an initial sample of patients with Alzheimer's dementia. The aim of the present study was to explore whether the selected variables would be equally predictive (i.e., valid) for a closely related group of patients; that is, patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: Eighteen patients with mild cognitive impairment completed the proposed approach to the measurement of fitness to drive, including clinical interviews, a neuropsychological assessment, and driving simulator rides. The criterion fitness to drive was again assessed by means of an on-road driving evaluation. The predictive validity of the fitness to drive assessment strategy was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. RESULTS: Twelve patients with MCI (66.7%) passed and 6 patients (33.3%) failed the on-road driving assessment. The previously proposed approach to the measurement of fitness to drive achieved an overall predictive accuracy of 94.4% in these patients. The application of an optimal cutoff resulted in a diagnostic accuracy of 100% sensitivity toward unfit to drive and 83.3% specificity toward fit to drive. Further analyses revealed that the neuropsychological assessment and the driving simulator rides produced rather stable prediction rates, whereas clinical interviews were not significantly predictive for practical fitness to drive in the MCI patient sample. CONCLUSIONS: The selected measures of the previously proposed approach revealed adequate accuracy in identifying fitness to drive in patients with MCI. Furthermore, a combination of neuropsychological test performance and simulated driving behavior proved to be the most valid predictor of practical fitness to drive.

Prediction of Fitness to Drive in Patients with Alzheimer's Dementia.

The number of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) is increasing and so is the number of patients driving a car. To enable patients to retain their mobility while at the same time not endangering public safety, each patient should be assessed for fitness to drive. The aim of this study is to develop a method to assess fitness to drive in a clinical setting, using three types of assessments, i.e. clinical interviews, neuropsychological assessment and driving simulator rides. The goals are (1) to determine for each type of assessment which combination of measures is most predictive for on-road driving performance, (2) to compare the predictive value of clinical interviews, neuropsychological assessment and driving simulator evaluation and (3) to determine which combination of these assessments provides the best prediction of fitness to drive. Eighty-one patients with AD and 45 healthy individuals participated. All participated in a clinical interview, and were administered a neuropsychological test battery and a driving simulator ride (predictors). The criterion fitness to drive was determined in an on-road driving assessment by experts of the CBR Dutch driving test organisation according to their official protocol. The validity of the predictors to determine fitness to drive was explored by means of logistic regression analyses, discriminant function analyses, as well as receiver operating curve analyses. We found that all three types of assessments are predictive of on-road driving performance. Neuropsychological assessment had the highest classification accuracy followed by driving simulator rides and clinical interviews. However, combining all three types of assessments yielded the best prediction for fitness to drive in patients with AD with an overall accuracy of 92.7%, which makes this method highly valid for assessing fitness to drive in AD. This method may be used to advise patients with AD and their family members about fitness to drive.