Cargando…

Driving and exceptional cases: Supporting relicensing evaluation in patients whose visual fields fail to meet standards

PURPOSE: The UK Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's (DVLA) visual field criteria mean that homonymous defects close to fixation are not usually acceptable for driving. Here, we illustrate cases where patients with field defects failing to meet standards had their licences revoked but subseque...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harper, Robert A., Parkes, Jeremy A., Dickinson, Christine M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9543539/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35687309
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/opo.13015
_version_ 1784804396748505088
author Harper, Robert A.
Parkes, Jeremy A.
Dickinson, Christine M.
author_facet Harper, Robert A.
Parkes, Jeremy A.
Dickinson, Christine M.
author_sort Harper, Robert A.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The UK Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's (DVLA) visual field criteria mean that homonymous defects close to fixation are not usually acceptable for driving. Here, we illustrate cases where patients with field defects failing to meet standards had their licences revoked but subsequently were permitted to drive again through exceptional case provisions. METHODS: Clinical assessment of two patients with homonymous loss: a 62‐year‐old man (PWT) with a dense left upper homonymous quadrantanopia secondary to a right occipital lobe stroke and a 48‐year‐old woman (JC), only aware of right upper homonymous quadrantanopia following routine primary care assessment and subsequently attributed to left middle cerebral artery stroke from perinatal intracranial haemorrhage. RESULTS: PWT's Esterman test showed a significant central defect failing to meet the standard. His subsequent ophthalmic examination was otherwise unremarkable with excellent visual functions. Clinical evidence was provided supporting his relicensing application, and in time, a practical DVLA driving assessment indicated adaptation had been successful, and his licence was restored. JC's defect also failed to meet the standard, and her licence was revoked. Her ophthalmic examination was otherwise unremarkable, and her condition was attributed to a nonprogressive, isolated perinatal event. The DVLA accepted supporting clinical evidence; her subsequent practical driving assessment demonstrated successful adaptation and her licence was also restored. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional visual field tests are not necessarily predictive of real‐world driving performance, with drivers' adaptive strategies not being accommodated. In the UK, individuals with visual field loss failing to meet the standard may be eligible for relicensing as exceptional cases if specific criteria can be met. For exceptional cases potentially licensable under these criteria, the DVLA requires clinician support and a satisfactory practical driving assessment. Similar provisions exist internationally. Clinicians need to be aware of the role they may play in such scenarios.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9543539
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95435392022-10-14 Driving and exceptional cases: Supporting relicensing evaluation in patients whose visual fields fail to meet standards Harper, Robert A. Parkes, Jeremy A. Dickinson, Christine M. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Short Communication PURPOSE: The UK Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's (DVLA) visual field criteria mean that homonymous defects close to fixation are not usually acceptable for driving. Here, we illustrate cases where patients with field defects failing to meet standards had their licences revoked but subsequently were permitted to drive again through exceptional case provisions. METHODS: Clinical assessment of two patients with homonymous loss: a 62‐year‐old man (PWT) with a dense left upper homonymous quadrantanopia secondary to a right occipital lobe stroke and a 48‐year‐old woman (JC), only aware of right upper homonymous quadrantanopia following routine primary care assessment and subsequently attributed to left middle cerebral artery stroke from perinatal intracranial haemorrhage. RESULTS: PWT's Esterman test showed a significant central defect failing to meet the standard. His subsequent ophthalmic examination was otherwise unremarkable with excellent visual functions. Clinical evidence was provided supporting his relicensing application, and in time, a practical DVLA driving assessment indicated adaptation had been successful, and his licence was restored. JC's defect also failed to meet the standard, and her licence was revoked. Her ophthalmic examination was otherwise unremarkable, and her condition was attributed to a nonprogressive, isolated perinatal event. The DVLA accepted supporting clinical evidence; her subsequent practical driving assessment demonstrated successful adaptation and her licence was also restored. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional visual field tests are not necessarily predictive of real‐world driving performance, with drivers' adaptive strategies not being accommodated. In the UK, individuals with visual field loss failing to meet the standard may be eligible for relicensing as exceptional cases if specific criteria can be met. For exceptional cases potentially licensable under these criteria, the DVLA requires clinician support and a satisfactory practical driving assessment. Similar provisions exist internationally. Clinicians need to be aware of the role they may play in such scenarios. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-06-10 2022-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9543539/ /pubmed/35687309 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/opo.13015 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Short Communication
Harper, Robert A.
Parkes, Jeremy A.
Dickinson, Christine M.
Driving and exceptional cases: Supporting relicensing evaluation in patients whose visual fields fail to meet standards
title Driving and exceptional cases: Supporting relicensing evaluation in patients whose visual fields fail to meet standards
title_full Driving and exceptional cases: Supporting relicensing evaluation in patients whose visual fields fail to meet standards
title_fullStr Driving and exceptional cases: Supporting relicensing evaluation in patients whose visual fields fail to meet standards
title_full_unstemmed Driving and exceptional cases: Supporting relicensing evaluation in patients whose visual fields fail to meet standards
title_short Driving and exceptional cases: Supporting relicensing evaluation in patients whose visual fields fail to meet standards
title_sort driving and exceptional cases: supporting relicensing evaluation in patients whose visual fields fail to meet standards
topic Short Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9543539/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35687309
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/opo.13015
work_keys_str_mv AT harperroberta drivingandexceptionalcasessupportingrelicensingevaluationinpatientswhosevisualfieldsfailtomeetstandards
AT parkesjeremya drivingandexceptionalcasessupportingrelicensingevaluationinpatientswhosevisualfieldsfailtomeetstandards
AT dickinsonchristinem drivingandexceptionalcasessupportingrelicensingevaluationinpatientswhosevisualfieldsfailtomeetstandards