Citation

Cable G, Reisner M, Gerges S, Thirumavalavan V. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2000; 48(1): 14-17.

Affiliation

Jersey City Medical Center, New Jersey, USA.

Comment In:

J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48(1):100-2.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2000, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

10642015

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine geriatrician knowledge regarding how to prevent a patient with dementia who is a potentially dangerous driver from driving and to determine their willingness to recommend license revocation against the wishes of both the patient and the patient's family. Included is a comparison of responses from geriatricians in California, where related legislation has existed for a decade, with responses from geriatricians from all other US states combined. DESIGN: Survey sample. SETTING: Geriatric practices. PARTICIPANTS: Probability sample of 467 geriatricians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survey responses. RESULTS: More than 28% of all geriatricians (95% CI, 24.3%-32.7%) do not know how to report patients with dementia who are potentially dangerous drivers. A 22% difference (95% CI, 13.9%-30.8%) exists between California geriatricians and those in all other US states. More than 75% (95%, CI, 71.5%-79.5%) of all geriatricians agreed that physicians are responsible for reporting patients. More than 86% (95% CI, 83.2%-89.6%) of all geriatricians would contact state authorities despite the objections of the patient, and 72.9% (95% CI, 68.7%-77.1%) would contact authorities despite the objections of the patient's family. CONCLUSIONS: Although most geriatricians will act to protect the public from patients with dementia who are potentially dangerous drivers, many do not know how to report these drivers. Legislation can improve a physician's ability to report patients with dementia who are potentially dangerous drivers.

Language: en