Driving behavior and driving outcomes after acute and critical illness: A systematic review.
Valerie Danesh, Anthony D McDonald, Kellia J Hansmann and 7 others
PMID 40334531WHAT IT FOUND
Driving after hospitalization is poorly studied and evidence is mixed.
Brake reaction times were often slower, crash findings varied, and many patients self-restricted driving. Ask about driving safety before discharge and plan follow-up assessment.
Key findings
01Most participants had slower brake reaction times than healthy controls during recovery, and the most common follow-up period was 4 to 6 weeks after discharge.
02Crash findings were limited and mixed: only three studies reported crashes, one police-record study found no change after general surgery, one childbirth simulation study found no difference, and one shoulder surgery simulation study found more collisions at 6 weeks.
03Self-report studies found that between 46 and 52% of patients restricted or stopped driving after hospitalization, and hospital-based driving safety information changed older drivers' beliefs and return-to-driving plans.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Most included studies were simulator studies of surgical patients, especially after low-acuity surgery, so findings may not apply to medical or critical illness survivors. The review could not combine crash or near-crash results because the studies used different designs, populations, and outcome measures. Driving data came mainly from self-report or simulator tests, and none used in-vehicle cameras or sensors to capture real-world driving. Brake reaction time tests often used a light cue rather than a real driving hazard, so they may not show how patients brake in traffic. The authors excluded non-English studies and may have missed eligible papers. Evidence on readiness to resume driving is too limited to support firm recommendations.
Declared interests
The review was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging, which had no role in the selection or review of evidence or the decision to submit the manuscript.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that patients are unsafe to drive or that crash risk is proven to rise. The review found slower brake reaction times in many studies, but crash evidence was sparse and mixed, and the authors say the evidence is too limited to guide safe driving decisions.