RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 GPs’ awareness of car driving among oldest patients: exploratory results from a primary care cohort
JF BJGP Open
JO BJGP Open
FD Royal College of General Practitioners
SP BJGPO.2020.0145
DO 10.3399/BJGPO.2020.0145
VO 5
IS 2
A1 Leve, Verena
A1 Pentzek, Michael
A1 Fuchs, Angela
A1 Bickel, Horst
A1 Weeg, Dagmar
A1 Weyerer, Siegfried
A1 Werle, Jochen
A1 König, Hans-Helmut
A1 Hajek, André
A1 Lühmann, Dagmar
A1 van den Bussche, Hendrik
A1 Wiese, Birgitt
A1 Oey, Anke
A1 Heser, Kathrin
A1 Wagner, Michael
A1 Luppa, Melanie
A1 Röhr, Susanne
A1 Maier, Wolfgang
A1 Scherer, Martin
A1 Kaduszkiewicz, Hanna
A1 Riedel-Heller, Steffi G
A1 ,
YR 2021
UL http://bjgpopen.org/content/5/2/BJGPO.2020.0145.abstract
AB Background Increasingly more very old people are active drivers. Sensory, motor and cognitive limitations, and medication can increase safety risks. Timely attention to driving safety in the patient–doctor relationship can promote patient-centred solutions.Aim To explore the following questions: do GPs know which patients drive a car? Is fitness to drive addressed with patients?Design & setting Cross-sectional data from patient interviews and GP survey in the ninth follow-up phase of a prospective primary care cohort (the German Study on Ageing, Cognition and Dementia in Primary Care Patients (AgeCoDe) and the Study on Needs, Health Service Use, Costs and Health-Related Quality of Life in a large sample of ‘oldest-old’ primary care patients (≥85 years; AgeQualiDe)) .Method The sample consisted of patients in the age group ≥85 years and their GPs. Independent reports were gathered on driving activity from the GP and the patient, and information was gained from GPs on whether driving ability was discussed with the patient. Statistical analyses included validity parameters and bivariate characterisation of subgroups (non-parametric significance tests, effect size).Results Self-reports of 553 patients were available (69.5% female; mean age 90.5 years; 15.9% drive a car). For 427 patients, GP data were also available: GPs recognised 67.1% correctly as drivers and 94.9% as non-drivers. GPs said that they had discussed fitness to drive with 32.1% of potentially driving patients. Among drivers who were not recognised and with whom driving had not been discussed, there were more patients with a low educational level.Conclusion The GP’s assessment of driving activity among very old patients showed moderate sensitivity and good specificity. Driving ability was seldom discussed. Asking an appropriate question during assessment could increase GPs’ awareness of older patients’ automobility.