9 responses to “The 2010 BC Office of the Superintendant of Motor Vehicles (OSMV) Guidelines for Assessing Driver’s Fitness of Medically At Risk Drivers: A Guide for Family Physicians”

  1. It is much more reasonable to road test more people that i have previously felt uneasy about their abilities driving. Most people have insight into their capabilities but useful to have a fomal testing in place .

  2. I find this nugget still too complicated.

    Things must be simplified further if the bulk of practising GP’s will devote a greater mental commitment to this in an already overloaded day—sorry.

    I think that periodic, updated Road Testing should be mandatory for ALL DRIVERS, based both on age and medical condition. We as doctors have to provide evidence of ongoing competency, as do pilots and others with such privileged responsibility in our society. Costs of such a road test should be paid in full, or at least part, by the driver, to save costs to the OSMV. Predictive statistics, as alluded to by the author above, already exist to help with determining who needs to be regularly tested. This may seem like an infringement on driver’s confidential information, but driving is a privilege, not a right. Costs incurred by such a road test could be reasonable.

    GP’s need to be able to identify patients whose health issues may impact negatively on driving ability–this alludes to MEDICAL FITNESS TO DRIVE. However, I think it folly that GP’s should have to take on the responsibility of determining ABILITY TO DRIVE, or a supposed “likelihood” of this. What are we doing here- taking on more legal liability in an area for which we are not trained as experts ? Count me out.

    I welcome others’ thoughts on this.

    Jeff Dresselhuis

  3. As an active GP, I get more and more uncomfortable, like teachers, that progressively more is placed on the shoulders of GP’s to sort out with little back-up resources to address more complex problems of modern life,e.g. the hoops to access dementia medications, etc. This area, capacity to drive, is another fraught with complex issues, incl. declining patients’ functions with age. I do what I can ascertain as best as possible, likely my accuracy is higher the longer I have known the patient, and if I have any strong feelings within the very short office visit I can afford to establish safety on the road, I then indicate my recommendation to “road test.” The responsibility for the OSMV is to heed this, and to get on and test that individual in real time on the road with a more expert assessor for the crucial elements to allow continuance for this privilege to drive. There also should be a wider forum for input from more stakeholders on this difficult issue,incl. members of the public. Better policy and framework should result. I heartily agree with my colleague, the task for overloaded GP’s is to keep it simple.
    J. de Couto

  4. IT’S TOUGH TO TAKE AWAY A PERSON’S INDEPENDANCE SOMETIMES BUT FOR THE SAKE OF INCREASED SOCIETAL ACCIDENT VICTIMS WE MUST. I HAVE LOST A FEW PATIENTS DOING THIS BECAUSE THEY JUST DID NOT UNDERSTAND AND FELT RESENTFUL OVER BEING TESTED. THE USUAL COMPLAINT IS “BUT I’VE NEVER HAD AN ACCIDENT”
    I THINK THESE TESTS ARE USEFUL

  5. I have downloaded the pdf file and have found the table useful as a guide. still a fairly unwieldy document, however.

  6. have downloaded the pdf and find the table useful.

  7. Can you please send me the Physician’s Guide criteria for visual acuity for 80 year old Driver’s Medical Examination.

  8. I wanted to add my two cents to the issue of reportability. After medical school I was under the impression that we have to report those who have medical conditions that impact their ability to drive. In speaking with the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, and carefully reading the form they distribute to physicians for reporting at risk patients, I learned that you can only report someone if they 1. have a condition that affects their ability to drive and 2. you have knowledge that they are continuing to drive despite medical advice to the contrary. I was told that the College is very explicit about this, we cannot violate patient confidentiality and report, for example, someone with a seizure disorder, if they agree not to drive after being advised not to. Intuitively this makes sense, if someone agrees not to drive, how is it possibly defensible that we breach their confidentiality in the interests of public safety when there is no basis for suspecting that public safety is compromised? Please share your comments and experiences.

Leave a Reply