Are patients with brain tumours being given timely DVLA advice?

Abstract

Abstract Aims Over 11,000 patients are diagnosed with a primary brain tumour annually in the UK, with many more being diagnosed with a secondary brain tumour. UK law stipulates that all individuals with a brain tumour must inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and may be required to surrender their driving license depending on their specific tumour and symptoms. Despite this guidance, we found that patients continue to arrive at the neuro-oncology clinic without the correct DVLA advice being given. This can potentially lead to patients with brain tumours continuing to drive on the public highway, which poses a severe hazard as the risk of seizures could endanger the public. This retrospective study looks to review what information was provided to patients with brain tumours upon initial diagnosis and determine the adequacy of this; ultimately aiming to improve the quality of information given to future neuro-oncology patients. Method A structured questionnaire was designed, asking patients who have been treated for a brain tumour at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham about any information they received about driving when they were first diagnosed. The questionnaire comprised of 11 questions designed to gather an understanding of what information was given to patients about driving. The study secured local audit approval. 75 patients identified from the weekly neuro-oncology MDT list were contacted. All patients included in this audit were required to stop driving and inform the DVLA about their condition as per the DVLA guidelines. Their responses were collated and analysed. Using this data, we determined if there were inadequacies in the information that was given to these patients about driving, and how this process may be improved in the future. Results 60 patients (80%) possessed driving licenses when first diagnosed and 17% of these (n=10) were not told to stop driving; 8 of whom were diagnosed in primary/secondary care. 39 patients (65%) were first diagnosed in primary/secondary care, however, only 21% of these (n=8) were told to stop driving by primary/secondary care consultants. The remaining 31 patients (81%) were only told to stop driving after referral to tertiary care, by consultant neurosurgeons at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Conversely, of the 12 patients first diagnosed at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 85% were told to stop driving at diagnosis, suggesting a notable difference in informing patients between primary/secondary care and tertiary care. Patients also commented on the quality of the information received, as 10 individuals (21%) mentioned needing more information about getting their license back, and 5 individuals (11%) mentioning being given conflicting or incorrect information from different members of the MDT. Conclusion The results show that in practice, there are inconsistencies about mandatory DVLA advice which should be clearly provided to patients with a new diagnosis of a brain tumour. Only 78% of patients were told to stop driving at diagnosis, suggesting that the remainder could be liable to continue driving despite their diagnosis. Furthermore, many patients diagnosed in primary/secondary care are not being told to stop driving until after referral to tertiary care which can take weeks, causing delays in them being given this information, which can pose risks to themselves and the public. These delays may be alleviated by giving patients a simplified resource when they are first diagnosed which clearly explains the driving rules. We therefore propose developing a one-page resource based on DVLA guidance and distributing this to patients and referring healthcare professionals at first diagnosis. A subsequent re-audit can evaluate if this intervention improves the current situation.