|
1. DOT OA: |
FMCSA – Physical Qualifications Division (Medical Program) |
|||
|
2. Preliminary Title: |
Medical Examiner Performance Study |
|||
|
3. Subject and Purpose: |
Provide a brief description of the project. The project summary in the e‑Portfolio system may be used providing the information is current. Include: Topic, Specific Issues, Broad Goals, Potential Public Benefits. i. Topic: Examination of Medical Examiner Performance (Multi-method Study) ii. Specific Issues: The Agency estimates that there are approximately 7-9 million drivers subject to the FMCSA’s medical standards and advisory criteria. A medical certificate is typically valid for 2 years after the date of examination, so it is estimated that a minimum of 3-5 million medical examinations are conducted a year. Medical examinations may be performed more frequently if deemed necessary by the medical examiner or required for the CMV driver who holds a Federal medical exemption, intrastate medical exemption or other special status. There has been no research to date that directly correlates the role and performance of medical examiners who determine the physical qualifications of CMV drivers in the United States. Medical examiners are the medical and osteopathic doctors, physician assistants, chiropractors and advance practice nurses who perform these driver examinations. iii. Broad Goals: The project goals are to improve scientific guidance on medical certification and medical examiner performance issues that impact interstate CMV operator health and safety, and to inform associated agency policies and programs. iv. Potential Public Benefits: There is some evidence that improvement in the physical qualification of CMV drivers may reduce CMV crashes, fatalities and injuries. This study will improve credibility of the CMV examination process in the medical ands scientific communities. This study may also improve public confidence in the CMV driver medical qualification process. |
|||
|
4. Is this dissemination likely to be: (check one) |
Highly influential scientific information |
|||
| X |
Influential scientific information |
|||
|
5. Peer Review Plan: |
1) What is the schedule for peer review? The peer review is anticipated for late FY 2006, early FY 2007. |
|||
|
2) Will the review be conducted through a panel, individual letters, or will an alternative procedure be exercised? The peer review will be conducted through a selected group that will submit written comments. |
||||
|
3) Will there be opportunities for the public to comment on the work product to be peer reviewed, and if so, how and when will these opportunities be provided? There is a plan to give the public an opportunity to comment. FMCSA will be conducting public meetings in major regions of the United States in FY 2006 and FY 2007 including scientific roundtables. In addition, the findings will be reviewed by the agency’s expert Medical Review Board. |
||||
|
4) Will the FMCSA provide significant and relevant public comments to the peer reviewers before conducting their review? There are no plans to provide public comments to reviewers. |
||||
|
5) What is the anticipated number of reviewers (3 or fewer; 4-10; or more than 10)? There will be 3 or fewer reviewers conducting the peer review. |
||||
|
6) What are the primary disciplines or expertise needed to conduct the peer review? The primary expertise needed to conduct the peer review will be experts with medical degrees (M.D.) or related advanced training (Ph.D, e.g., health science). The agency will have access to medical experts from all relevant specialties, including experts in occupational medicine and occupational health/safety. |
||||
|
7) Will reviewers be selected from within DOT or from an outside organization? And will reviewers be selected by an outside organization? The reviewers will be selected by the Chief, Physical Qualifications Division and will be experts chosen from other DOT modes or experts from the extensive medical community network for occupational health and safety. |
||||
|
8) Will the public, including scientific or professional societies, be asked to nominate potential peer reviewers? No. |
||||
|
6. Contact person: |
Mary D. Gunnels |
E-mail: |
||
|
Phone: |
202-366-4001 |
|||