Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Licensing Agency (licensing + agency)
Selected AbstractsLong-term review of driving potential following bilateral panretinal photocoagulation for proliferative diabetic retinopathyDIABETIC MEDICINE, Issue 1 2009S. A. Vernon Abstract Aim To determine the necessity for repeated Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) visual field testing in people with diabetes who have had bilateral panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Methods A questionnaire survey was conducted of driving history in a cohort of people with diabetes who had been treated with bilateral PRP for proliferative retinopathy between 1988 and 1990. In addition, all similarly eligible subjects attending the diabetic retinal review clinic over a 12-month period who had had laser between 1991 and 2000 were questioned as to their driving status. Results Forty-five surviving patients from the 1988,1990 cohort were eligible and 25 returned the questionnaire (55%). Eight had never driven and 15 (13 with Type 1 diabetes) still held a valid licence, having passed the DVLA field test on a number of occasions. Neither of the two patients who had stopped driving reported failing the DVLA field test as the reason for stopping. All 12 of the patients directly questioned in the clinic were still driving and had passed at least one repeat DVLA test. Conclusions People with Type 1 diabetes who have no further laser treatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy can expect to retain their UK driving licence for at least 15 years following small-burn PRP, provided they maintain sufficient acuity. [source] Insulin-treated diabetes and driving in the UKDIABETIC MEDICINE, Issue 6 2002G. Gill Abstract Diabetes, and particularly insulin-treated diabetes, has important implications for motor vehicle driving, largely because of its association with potential hypoglycaemia. For this reason, most countries operate some driving restrictions on insulin-treated diabetic patients, as well as systems of intermittent reassessment of hypoglycaemic risk. In the UK, regulations are operated by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), which is an agency of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). They are supported by an Expert Panel which advises the Secretary of State on diabetes-related issues relating to fitness to drive. The patient organization Diabetes UK is also concerned with diabetes and driving issues, largely from a position of lobbying policy-influencers and supporting individual cases. All parties involved with diabetes and driving issues recognize the need for more research on the subject, as the current literature is flawed in design, though no convincing excess of accidents amongst diabetic drivers has been conclusively demonstrated. Currently in the UK, Class 2 vehicles (large trucks and passenger vehicles) are barred to diabetic drivers on insulin. European law has recently extended this to so-called C1 (large vans and small lorries) and D1 (minibuses) vehicles, though the law has recently been revised to allow individual consideration for potential diabetic C1 drivers on insulin treatment. Diabetes and insulin-treated diabetes is an emotive and difficult issue, for which a stronger evidence base is urgently needed. [source] How good are we at advising appropriate patients with glaucoma to inform the DVLA?OPHTHALMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS, Issue 4 2008A closed audit loop Abstract Purpose:, To establish how good we are as clinicians at advising glaucoma patients with bilateral visual field defects of their legal responsibility to inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). By using a sticker placed in the patients' notes to highlight driving status and visual fields, we sought to improve our success in providing and documenting this advice. Methods:, We interviewed and examined the notes of two groups of 100 consecutive glaucoma patients before and after the introduction of a ,driver sticker' placed into patients' notes at the time of visual field testing. We examined the documentation of driving status, and the provision and documentation of advice regarding the DVLA. Results:, In the first audit, we found only 9% of patients had driving status documented. Only 20% of drivers with bilateral field defects were advised to inform the DVLA with 11.4% documentation of this advice. After the introduction of the sticker, we succeeded in improving the documentation of driving status to 99%. We advised and documented the advice to inform the DVLA in 97% of drivers with bilateral field defects. Conclusions:, We found that as a unit we were poor at documenting driving status and advising glaucoma patients with bilateral field defects to inform the DVLA. By the simple measure of introducing a sticker into patients' notes, we were able to highlight this critical group and improve our provision and documentation of appropriate advice regarding informing the DVLA. [source] Tramadol for pain relief in children undergoing tonsillectomy: a comparison with morphinePEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, Issue 3 2003Thomas Engelhardt MD SummaryBackground: Pain control for paediatric patients undergoing tonsillectomy remains problematic. Tramadol is reported to be an effective analgesic and to have a side-effect profile similar to morphine, but is currently not licensed for paediatric use in the UK. Methods: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial in children who were scheduled for elective tonsillectomy or adenotonsillectomy at the Royal Aberdeen Children Hospital. Following local ethics committee approval and after obtaining a drug exemption certificate from the Medicines Licensing Agency for an unlicensed drug, we recruited 20 patients each into morphine (0.1 mg·kg,1), tramadol (1 mg·kg,1) and tramadol (2 mg·kg,1) groups. These drugs were given as a single injection following induction of anaesthesia. In addition, all patients received diclofenac (1 mg·kg,1) rectally. The postoperative pain scores, analgesic requirements, sedation scores, signs of respiratory depression and nausea and vomiting, as well as antiemetic requirements, were noted at 4-h intervals until discharge. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in age, weight, type of operation or induction of anaesthesia, 4-h sedation and pain scores and further analgesic requirements. There were no episodes of respiratory depression. Morphine was associated with a significantly higher incidence of vomiting following discharge to the wards (75% versus 40%, P=0.03) compared with both tramadol groups. Conclusions: Tramadol has similar analgesic properties, when compared with morphine. The various pharmaceutical presentations and the availability as a noncontrolled substance may make it a useful addition to paediatric anaesthesia if it becomes licensed for paediatric anaesthesia in the UK. [source] | ||||||||||