Cargando…

Audit Against DVLA Guidance for New Psychiatric Patient Referrals at the Early Intervention for Psychosis Team (EIP)

AIMS: To assess the compliance of the clinicians in EIP team with DVLA guidelines. Objectives: To assess if there was documented evidence of: 1)Patient's diagnosis, 2)Patients’ driving status, 3)Type of vehicle driven, 4)Informing the patient that their condition may affect their ability to dri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Radhakrishnan, Tharun Krishnan, Lathif, Nismen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9380128/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2022.476
_version_ 1784768818909806592
author Radhakrishnan, Tharun Krishnan
Lathif, Nismen
author_facet Radhakrishnan, Tharun Krishnan
Lathif, Nismen
author_sort Radhakrishnan, Tharun Krishnan
collection PubMed
description AIMS: To assess the compliance of the clinicians in EIP team with DVLA guidelines. Objectives: To assess if there was documented evidence of: 1)Patient's diagnosis, 2)Patients’ driving status, 3)Type of vehicle driven, 4)Informing the patient that their condition may affect their ability to drive, 5)Advice regarding driving restrictions where applicable, 6)Informing the patient that they have a legal duty to inform the DVLA about their condition METHODS: We selected two-thirds of the patients(n = 40) enrolled in the EIP service in the last year by consecutive sampling. We collected the data retrospectively from the clinical documentation and analysed it using excel sheets. RESULTS: The mean age of the study sample was 34 years. 95%(n = 38) had a documented diagnosis, 67.5%(n = 27) had a documented driving status. The documentation of driving status was completed by doctors in 52%(n = 14), nurses in 26%(n = 7) and by both in 22% (n = 6). The type of vehicle driven was documented for only 33%(5) of the drivers. Among the drivers identified 33%(n = 5) had been informed that their condition might affect their driving, 67%(n = 10) had received information on driving restrictions and 47%(n = 7) had received information that they have a legal duty to inform the DVLA. DISCUSSION: One of the reasons for the low compliance may be because another team might have documented the information at the time of referral. It is possible that the professional involved did elicit the information but didn't document the same. Healthcare professionals(HCP) have to identify, discuss and document driving-related information as advised by the DVLA. In cases where the patients’ don't follow the advice, the HCP must notify the DVLA. CONCLUSION: Assessment of driving history and the risks associated are critical. Awareness should be raised among the clinicians (through training and team meetings). This practice should be made an integral part of the structured initial assessments. Patients can be offered information leaflets. If successfully implemented, it will prevent unsafe driving and minimise the risk of harm for the patient and other road users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9380128
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93801282022-08-18 Audit Against DVLA Guidance for New Psychiatric Patient Referrals at the Early Intervention for Psychosis Team (EIP) Radhakrishnan, Tharun Krishnan Lathif, Nismen BJPsych Open Audit AIMS: To assess the compliance of the clinicians in EIP team with DVLA guidelines. Objectives: To assess if there was documented evidence of: 1)Patient's diagnosis, 2)Patients’ driving status, 3)Type of vehicle driven, 4)Informing the patient that their condition may affect their ability to drive, 5)Advice regarding driving restrictions where applicable, 6)Informing the patient that they have a legal duty to inform the DVLA about their condition METHODS: We selected two-thirds of the patients(n = 40) enrolled in the EIP service in the last year by consecutive sampling. We collected the data retrospectively from the clinical documentation and analysed it using excel sheets. RESULTS: The mean age of the study sample was 34 years. 95%(n = 38) had a documented diagnosis, 67.5%(n = 27) had a documented driving status. The documentation of driving status was completed by doctors in 52%(n = 14), nurses in 26%(n = 7) and by both in 22% (n = 6). The type of vehicle driven was documented for only 33%(5) of the drivers. Among the drivers identified 33%(n = 5) had been informed that their condition might affect their driving, 67%(n = 10) had received information on driving restrictions and 47%(n = 7) had received information that they have a legal duty to inform the DVLA. DISCUSSION: One of the reasons for the low compliance may be because another team might have documented the information at the time of referral. It is possible that the professional involved did elicit the information but didn't document the same. Healthcare professionals(HCP) have to identify, discuss and document driving-related information as advised by the DVLA. In cases where the patients’ don't follow the advice, the HCP must notify the DVLA. CONCLUSION: Assessment of driving history and the risks associated are critical. Awareness should be raised among the clinicians (through training and team meetings). This practice should be made an integral part of the structured initial assessments. Patients can be offered information leaflets. If successfully implemented, it will prevent unsafe driving and minimise the risk of harm for the patient and other road users. Cambridge University Press 2022-06-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9380128/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2022.476 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Audit
Radhakrishnan, Tharun Krishnan
Lathif, Nismen
Audit Against DVLA Guidance for New Psychiatric Patient Referrals at the Early Intervention for Psychosis Team (EIP)
title Audit Against DVLA Guidance for New Psychiatric Patient Referrals at the Early Intervention for Psychosis Team (EIP)
title_full Audit Against DVLA Guidance for New Psychiatric Patient Referrals at the Early Intervention for Psychosis Team (EIP)
title_fullStr Audit Against DVLA Guidance for New Psychiatric Patient Referrals at the Early Intervention for Psychosis Team (EIP)
title_full_unstemmed Audit Against DVLA Guidance for New Psychiatric Patient Referrals at the Early Intervention for Psychosis Team (EIP)
title_short Audit Against DVLA Guidance for New Psychiatric Patient Referrals at the Early Intervention for Psychosis Team (EIP)
title_sort audit against dvla guidance for new psychiatric patient referrals at the early intervention for psychosis team (eip)
topic Audit
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9380128/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2022.476
work_keys_str_mv AT radhakrishnantharunkrishnan auditagainstdvlaguidancefornewpsychiatricpatientreferralsattheearlyinterventionforpsychosisteameip
AT lathifnismen auditagainstdvlaguidancefornewpsychiatricpatientreferralsattheearlyinterventionforpsychosisteameip