4.5 Article

Failure To Fully Disclose During Pretransplant Psychological Evaluation in Alcoholic Liver Disease: A Driving Under the Influence Corroboration Study

期刊

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 1632-1636

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/lt.21574

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevention of recidivism in alcoholic liver disease is one of the aims of pretransplant psychological evaluation (PE). Failure to fully disclose the extent of alcohol use is evidence of ongoing alcoholism. Driving under the influence (DUI) represents objective evidence of alcohol abuse, but verifying DUIs through official records is not standard during PE. The aim of this study was to determine whether there was failure to fully disclose alcohol abuse on the part of patients on the basis of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) DUI rate. Demographics, alcohol abuse/abstinence history, and DUIs admitted by the patient on PE were collected for 82 alcoholic patients with cirrhosis. The DOT was queried for DUIs before PE for all patients. Discrepancies between PE and DOT DUI numbers were evaluated and re-presented to the psychologist without identifiers. Psychosocial recommendation was then evaluated in light of DOT/PE DUI discrepancies. Six patients did not drive. The remaining 76 had 29 8 years of alcohol abuse and reported sobriety for 55 64 months before PE. Eighteen DUIs that were not originally admitted were discovered; 63% of DUIs occurred in the period during which patients claimed to be sober. Two patients had been rejected for transplant for other causes. Re-presenting the case to the psychologist with the new knowledge of DUIs would have prevented transplant clearance for the remaining 16 (21%, P = 0.000005 versus prior PE). In conclusion, official DUI records in prospective transplant candidates may identify patients who do not fully disclose the extent of their alcohol abuse and may be at risk for adverse outcomes. Liver Transpl 14:1632-1636, 2008. (C) 2008 AASLD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据