ArticleCJEM2026
Emergency physicians' knowledge and practice in reporting medically unfit drivers in Atlantic Canada.
Article in CJEM, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEmergency physicians frequently encounter patients with medical conditions affecting their fitness to drive. Emergency physicians have legal and ethical duties to report medically unfit drivers. However, many report low confidence in making these decisions. This may lead to underreporting. We aimed to assess knowledge, practice, and barriers regarding reporting of unfit drivers by Atlantic Canadian emergency physicians.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of emergency physicians from four Atlantic Provinces. The survey contained 62 questions across four categories: 1) Demographics (seven), 2) General knowledge (five), 3) Scenarios/practice (34), 4) Barriers/needs (16). Where appropriate, participants rated answers on a five-point Likert scale.
resultsSeventy-eight emergency physicians (response rate 20.6%) completed the survey: male (59.0%), age 35-44 (37.2%), formally trained in emergency medicine (74.7%). Overall, 88.5% lacked formal training to determine fitness to drive. Familiarity was low regarding provincial regulations (61.5% "slightly" or "somewhat" familiar) and the Canadian Medical Association Driver's guide (85.9% "not at all" to "somewhat" familiar) while most (80.8%) use clinical judgment to guide decisions. Half indicated they report (56.4%) and document (50.0%) unfit drivers only "sometimes" or less frequently. When presented with clinical scenarios where reporting is indicated (first seizure, recurrent seizure), most (100% and 96.2%) would advise the patients not to drive, but a third (33.4% and 37.2%) would either not report or leave it to another physician to do so. Lack of guideline knowledge was the most significant barrier to reporting, while pocket cards, an electronic app and electronic method to report were identified as enablers. Most emergency physicians (85.9%) would like formal education on this topic.
conclusionsAtlantic Canadian emergency physicians expressed low familiarity with guidelines for determining medical fitness to drive and disclosed potential underreporting. Efforts should focus on targeted education and streamlined tools to improve reporting and enhance road safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42862537What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.