Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2010 21:55:41 GMT
I've now had a reply from DVLA with the results of my FOIA request. They haven't been able to answer all the questions, but there is some useful information here--enough to give at least a broad idea of outcomes. The main downside is that they only have data for 2009, which means no clear trend information and it's impossible to know if 2009 was typical. I find it surprising that they only had 2009 data: it might be worth pressing them on this.
Here were the main questions I asked (verbatim) and their answers (also verbatim):
In the past three years, how many people have reported to DVLA that they have either Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)?
Information is not held in respect of ADD but is held with regards ADHD but only for 2009. The information held is that in 2009, 149 people reported to DVLA that they had ADHD.
In the past three years, of the people reporting that they had either ADHD or ADD how many were told that:
i) They could retain their licence or be issued with a new driving licence?
Ninety four (94) with no restrictions.
ii) They could be issued with a driving licence for a period of one, two or three years if the Medical Adviser decides that a review of their medical fitness is required in the future?
Thirty (30).
iii) They must stop driving if medical enquiries confirm that they are not fit to drive until their condition improved?
Twenty two (22).
There were a further three drivers who did not wish to continue driving and surrendered their licence.
In the case of those whose licences were revoked or refused by the Medical Adviser at DVLA in the past three years, how many:
i) Appealed against the decision through a Magistrate's Court?
None.
ii) Had their appeals granted?
None.
That's roughly a 63% chance that a driving licence won't be affected; 20% whose permission to drive will be reviewed but can still drive; and 14% that it will be revoked.
Without some detailed case-studies, it's impossible to know how consistent this decision-making is, and how serious the problems were in the case of those who had their licences revoked. When I've got some time, I'm happy to draft questions on these areas, but obviously the more detailed the information we are asking for the more likely it is that we run into confidentiality issues.
At the moment, the only reasonably clear conclusion that can drawn from this is that if 2009 is typical of other years anyone reporting ADHD to DVLA is much more likely to keep their licence for at least the short term than not, and more likely to keep it without any restrictions than not.
In particular, we need to ask what the triggers were for the 22 cases where licences were revoked. I think with careful wording we should be able to get further down the track with this. If anyone wants to help out with a suggested wording, that would be welcome!
My general experience of FOIA requests is that the departments do want to be helpful if they can, so I think it's worth having another pass at this.
I'm going to leave it to others to comment as to whether they think this result is encouraging, discouraging, or neither because there is simply not enough data to go on. My next job is to get more information. But I hope you'll feel that this is a useful start in shining some light into a dark corner.
It occurs to me that we could start using FOIAs with various bits of the NHS to get some overall picture of the diagnosis situation--how many people are diagnosed, how long it takes, etc etc. It would help to set our personal experience in some context. My gut feeling is that we would find that the overall situation is pretty bad, but that where you lived made a lot of difference.
Your servant aye.
Here were the main questions I asked (verbatim) and their answers (also verbatim):
In the past three years, how many people have reported to DVLA that they have either Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)?
Information is not held in respect of ADD but is held with regards ADHD but only for 2009. The information held is that in 2009, 149 people reported to DVLA that they had ADHD.
In the past three years, of the people reporting that they had either ADHD or ADD how many were told that:
i) They could retain their licence or be issued with a new driving licence?
Ninety four (94) with no restrictions.
ii) They could be issued with a driving licence for a period of one, two or three years if the Medical Adviser decides that a review of their medical fitness is required in the future?
Thirty (30).
iii) They must stop driving if medical enquiries confirm that they are not fit to drive until their condition improved?
Twenty two (22).
There were a further three drivers who did not wish to continue driving and surrendered their licence.
In the case of those whose licences were revoked or refused by the Medical Adviser at DVLA in the past three years, how many:
i) Appealed against the decision through a Magistrate's Court?
None.
ii) Had their appeals granted?
None.
That's roughly a 63% chance that a driving licence won't be affected; 20% whose permission to drive will be reviewed but can still drive; and 14% that it will be revoked.
Without some detailed case-studies, it's impossible to know how consistent this decision-making is, and how serious the problems were in the case of those who had their licences revoked. When I've got some time, I'm happy to draft questions on these areas, but obviously the more detailed the information we are asking for the more likely it is that we run into confidentiality issues.
At the moment, the only reasonably clear conclusion that can drawn from this is that if 2009 is typical of other years anyone reporting ADHD to DVLA is much more likely to keep their licence for at least the short term than not, and more likely to keep it without any restrictions than not.
In particular, we need to ask what the triggers were for the 22 cases where licences were revoked. I think with careful wording we should be able to get further down the track with this. If anyone wants to help out with a suggested wording, that would be welcome!
My general experience of FOIA requests is that the departments do want to be helpful if they can, so I think it's worth having another pass at this.
I'm going to leave it to others to comment as to whether they think this result is encouraging, discouraging, or neither because there is simply not enough data to go on. My next job is to get more information. But I hope you'll feel that this is a useful start in shining some light into a dark corner.
It occurs to me that we could start using FOIAs with various bits of the NHS to get some overall picture of the diagnosis situation--how many people are diagnosed, how long it takes, etc etc. It would help to set our personal experience in some context. My gut feeling is that we would find that the overall situation is pretty bad, but that where you lived made a lot of difference.
Your servant aye.