You’d have to have been living on the moon with the John Lewis advert not to be aware of two important and highly relevant news items regarding driving medical standards.
First came news that the GMC was recommending new guidance with regard to patients who may be below medical standard to drive. Specifically Dr’s are advised that they may, when a patient has demonstrably refused to act, inform the DVLA. Clearly this flies directly in the face of patient confidentiality with which every health professional lives.
The immediate response from media and representative organisations was predictable. That it would drive a wedge between Dr and patient and that “the way forward must be for doctor and patient to work together rather than in isolation” (Steve Gooding, RAC Foundation)” for example. 10/10 for stating the bleedin’ obvious, mate.
In actual fact the GMC is “consulting” on proposals (of which driving and the DVLA is not the only one) so presumably this will run and run.
Secondly, the tragic results of the Glasgow bin lorry crash, clearly understood to have happened because a man lied to cover up his extensive and historic lack of medical fitness to drive.
But what of vision ? Clearly vision is a vital component of the sensory information to a driver and so the optometrist is in a very interesting position. First much confusion arises from the DVLA dual standard of requiring 6/12 and the numberplate test. This was clearly a fudge to avoid clinical standardisation. Most optometrists, if they have a positive view about the numberplate at all, would accept it as a rough and ready street test, requiring confirmation of a VA standard under clinical conditions. Secondly, most optometrists have a jaundiced opinion of the standardisation of GP Snellen charts anyway.
Down to me I’d stop regarding driving as a right and demand that each licence renewal is accompanied by a certificate signed by both optometrist and GP that the person is visually and medically fit to drive, and at their expense.
But here and now it is clear the GOC needs to move alongside the GMC opening the discussion on this vexed issue of confidentiality. Given that any breach lays open the registrant to an FTP hearing it isn’t sufficient to advocate the guidance of another body (College of Optometrists), guidance needs to be clear, unequivocal and owned by the regulator.