Fitness to Drive Post Stroke: A Physician's Perspective
Fitness to Drive Post Stroke: A Physician's Perspective Fitness to Drive Post Stroke: A Physician's Perspective
• The neurologist reviewed the patient two months after surgery. He was concerned that the patient had driven 50 km to see him and advised him not to drive because of residual lower extremity weakness, decreased upper extremity dexterity, and restricted cervical range of motion. These recommendations were included in his follow-up report to the family doctor. The neurologist did not see him again. The family physician advised the patient to refrain from driving and this advice was followed. Neither physician notified the Ministry of Transportation. A year after his surgery the patient requested permission to resume driving and as there had been further improvement the attending physician gave permission.
• A year later, a motorcyclist and passenger were slowing down in the right-hand hand lane of a four-lane road preparing to make a left hand turn. Just as the patient overtook them in the left lane the motorcycle driver turned and was struck by the patient’s vehicle. The motorcycle driver sustained a compound fracture left tibia and fibula and required several surgeries. After two years he had continued problems with left leg weakness and this prevented him from obtaining a job as a labourer. The passenger sustained a severe head injury and after three years had residual cognitive problems.
- Page 1 and 2: FITNESS TO DRIVE POST STROKE A Phys
- Page 3 and 4: What does the Legislation have to s
- Page 5 and 6: What does the Legislation have to s
- Page 7 and 8: What does the C.P.S.O. have to say?
- Page 9 and 10: What does the C.M.P.A. have to say?
- Page 11 and 12: What does the C.M.P.A. have to say?
- Page 13 and 14: National Medical Standards • Deve
- Page 16 and 17: The Process • Incoming reports sc
- Page 18 and 19: The Process • Medical Review Sect
- Page 20 and 21: Common Problems 1. Transient ischem
- Page 22 and 23: Stroke • Following an event resul
- Page 24 and 25: Cerebral aneurysm. • Aneurysms th
- Page 26 and 27: Seizures Type of Seizure • Single
- Page 28 and 29: Vision • Acuity: Corrected binocu
- Page 30 and 31: Factors to consider when assessing
- Page 32 and 33: Question to MTO With respect to the
- Page 34 and 35: Response A driver who is reported b
- Page 36 and 37: CASE REPORT
- Page 40 and 41: • The family doctor and neurologi
- Page 42 and 43: • A neurologist gave expert testi
- Page 44 and 45: RESPONSIBILITY • Patient 40% •
- Page 46: LESSONS • Courts unmoved by expla
• The neurologist reviewed the patient two months<br />
after surgery. He was concerned that the patient<br />
had driven 50 km <strong>to</strong> see him and advised him not<br />
<strong>to</strong> drive because of residual lower extremity<br />
weakness, decreased upper extremity dexterity,<br />
and restricted cervical range of motion. These<br />
recommendations were included in his follow-up<br />
report <strong>to</strong> the family doc<strong>to</strong>r. The neurologist did not<br />
see him again. The family physician advised the<br />
patient <strong>to</strong> refrain from driving and this advice was<br />
followed. Neither physician notified the Ministry of<br />
Transportation. A year after his surgery the<br />
patient requested permission <strong>to</strong> resume driving<br />
and as there had been further improvement the<br />
attending physician gave permission.
Change language