Driving Errors Predicting Pass/Fail On-Road Assessment Outcomes Among Cognitively Impaired Older Drivers.

Older drivers with cognitive impairment (CI)/dementia make significantly more driving errors than healthy controls; however, whether driving errors are predictive of pass/fail outcomes in older drivers with CI/dementia are unclear. This study determined the driving errors that predicted failing an on-road assessment in drivers with CI. We retrospectively collected comprehensive driving evaluation data of 80 participants (76.1 ± 9.3 years) from an Ontario driving assessment center. Adjustment to stimuli (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.88), lane maintenance (AUC = 0.84), and speed regulation errors (AUC = 0.85) strongly predicted pass/fail outcomes. Worse performance on the Trails B (time) and Useful Field of View® (Subtest 2, Subtest 3, and risk index) were significantly correlated with adjustment to stimuli (p < .05), lane maintenance (p < .05), and speed regulation errors (p < .05). Adjustment to stimuli, lane maintenance, and speed regulation errors may be critical indicators of failing an on-road assessment in older drivers with CI. Prioritizing these errors may help identify at-risk drivers.

Clinical Tests Predicting On-Road Performance in Older Drivers with Cognitive Impairment.

Background. The Trail Making Test Part B (Trails B) and Useful Field of View® (UFOV) can predict on-road outcomes in drivers with cognitive impairment (CI); however, studies have not included drivers referred for comprehensive driving evaluations (CDEs), who typically have more severe CI. Purpose. We determined the predictive ability of Trails B and UFOV on pass/fail on-road outcomes in drivers with CI (Montreal Cognitive Assessment <26) referred for CDEs. Method. Retrospective data collection from two driving assessments centers (N = 100, mean age = 76.2 ± 8.8 years). Findings. The Trails B (area under the curve [AUC] = .70) and UFOV subtests 2 (AUC = .73) and 3 (AUC = .76) predicted pass/fail outcomes. A cut-point ≥467 ms on UFOV subtest 3 better-predicted pass/fail outcomes with 78.9% sensitivity and 73.5% specificity. In comparison, a cut-point ≥3.58 min on Trails B had lower sensitivity (73.7%) and specificity (61.8%). Implications. The UFOV subtest 3 may be more useful than the Trails B for predicting pass/fail outcomes in drivers with more severe CI referred for CDEs.

The SIMARD-MD is not an Effective Driver Screening Tool for Determining Fitness-To-Drive.

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported poor sensitivity and specificity of the Screen for the Identification of Cognitively Impaired Medically At-Risk Drivers, a modification of the DemTech (SIMARD-MD) to screen for drivers with cognitive impairment. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the SIMARD-MD can accurately predict pass/fail on a road test in drivers with cognitive impairment (CI) and healthy drivers. METHODS: Data from drivers with CI were collected from two comprehensive driving assessment centres (n=86) and compared with healthy drivers (n=30). All participants completed demographic measures, clinical measures, and a road rest (pass/fail). Analyses consisted of correlations between the SIMARD-MD and the other clinical measures, and a receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve to determine the predictive ability of the SIMARD-MD. RESULTS: All healthy drivers passed the road test compared with 44.2% of the CI sample. On the SIMARD-MD, the CI sample scored significantly worse than healthy drivers (p < .001). The ROC curve showed the SIMARD-MD, regardless of any cut-point, misclassified a large number of CI individuals (AUC=.692; 95% CI = 0.578, 0.806). CONCLUSIONS: Given the high level of misclassification, the SIMARD-MD should not be used with either healthy drivers or those with cognitive impairment for making decisions about driving.