300 Section - Return to Driving Education in Rehabilitation: A Clinician Survey of Education and Knowledge in Two Rehabilitation Hospitals

• To evaluate current knowledge regarding the Return to Driving (RTD) process amongst rehabilitation clinicians


• To determine current practices in RTD education provided to patients in an inpatient rehabilitation (IPR) setting


• To explore clinicians’ preferences for how RTD information should be delivered to patients

A cross-sectional survey conducted across the IPR wards of two metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. An invitation to participate was distributed to clinicians, and responses were collected via an online survey. The survey comprised two sections: the first explored clinicians’ education and current practices, while the second presented a patient scenario, asking participants to provide their opinions regarding RTD decision-making.

Results:

A total of 112 clinicians completed the survey. Nurses represented the largest professional group (n=34, 30.4%), followed by doctors (n=22, 19.6%). More than half of respondents (n=63, 56.3%) reported not receiving any RTD-related education during their university training, and half (n=56, 50.0%,) felt they lacked sufficient knowledge to discuss RTD with patients. The rehabilitation doctor was most frequently identified as responsible for providing RTD education (n=99, 88.4%), followed by occupational therapists (n=81, 72.3%).

In the patient scenario, the rehabilitation doctor was again most commonly nominated (n=94, 88.4%) as the ideal clinician to provide clearance, followed by the neurologist (n=71, 63.3%). Regarding the timing of RTD, clinicians who were uncertain made up the most common response (n=41, 38.4%), whilst 4 months post event (n=31, 27.7%) was the most frequent timeframe that was suggested. Most clinicians believed that patients should not resume driving immediately post-discharge (n=94, 83.9%).

Conclusion:

Most clinicians surveyed reported limited education and insufficient knowledge regarding RTD processes. Clinicians were often uncertain about appropriate timing but generally advised against driving immediately after discharge. Targeted training and the development of structured RTD education processes should be prioritised within IPR settings to enhance patient safety and consistency of care.