AAC and Driving After Severe TBI: Matching Technology to Real-World Goals
Ms. L is 52, 14 months after a severe TBI from a bicycle collision. She has severe cognitive-communication deficits: sparse, effortful speech, word-finding failures, and reading comprehension at a second-grade level; she uses gestures and a notebook. She lives with her husband and wants to return to her job as a warehouse shift supervisor and to drive again. Her employer will hold the position for 6 months if accommodations are feasible. A speech-generating device was recommended, but she rejected a large eye-gaze system and says it is 'too slow.' She has a smartphone and uses picture texting with family. Executive testing shows poor planning and impulsivity; she failed a mock driving screen.
1. How would you design an augmentative and alternative communication trial that matches her goals and contexts, and what outcomes would you measure?
Read the worked answer
Start from participation, not from the device.
- Define the communication partners and messages she needs: supervisor, coworkers, family, and emergency situations. Warehouse work may require short, rapid, noise-tolerant messages ('stop,' 'need help,' 'yes/no,' safety alerts), not long sentences.
- Trial multiple access methods in parallel: a mainstream tablet with a communication app and large buttons, a dedicated speech-generating device with auditory scanning, and a low-tech backup board. Include a symbol set matched to her reading level. Her rejection of eye-gaze is valid data - it was too slow for her; do not overrule it without trying alternatives.
- Train in the real environment, not only the clinic: practice with her husband, then with a job coach at the worksite. Include communication partner training so others wait and do not answer for her.
- Measure function, not device features: success rate and time to communicate key messages, frequency of communication breakdowns and repairs, number of partners, participation in work tasks, and Goal Attainment Scaling tied to her own goals. Track device abandonment risk over weeks, not a single session.
- Reassess at 2, 6, and 12 weeks and adjust vocabulary and access method.
2. How do you address her goal of driving, and what should the evaluation include?
Read the worked answer
Driving is a privilege with public-safety and legal dimensions; it cannot be cleared by a clinic screen alone.
- Refer for a comprehensive driving evaluation by an occupational therapist certified in driver rehabilitation, including clinical assessment (vision, attention, processing speed, executive function, insight) and, where appropriate, an on-road evaluation in a dual-control vehicle or simulator as a pre-screen. A failed mock screen is informative but not a final verdict; it should prompt a formal evaluation.
- Address insight and impulsivity. Her executive deficits and poor planning are directly relevant to driving safety. A patient who cannot appreciate her deficits is at higher risk and may need structured feedback and family involvement.
- Follow state law. Many jurisdictions require clinicians to report potentially impaired drivers; know the local requirement and document the discussion.
- Consider graded return: restricted driving (daylight only, familiar routes, no highway) with periodic reassessment, or a formal on-road training program before unrestricted licensure.
- Prepare for a negative result. If driving is not safe, discuss alternative transportation, vocational implications, and family agreement, and document the counseling.
3. What would a funder need to see to justify the device, and how do you handle her rejection of the recommended system?
Read the worked answer
Funders approve devices that are medically necessary, matched to functional goals, and supported by trial data.
- Document the communication deficit with standardized assessment and real-world examples of breakdowns.
- Show a trial of alternatives, including what was tried, what failed, and why. Her rejection of eye-gaze is part of the evidence: it was too slow and she would not use it, which predicts abandonment.
- Link the device to functional goals: work participation, safety, medical decision-making, and social connection, with measurable outcomes and a training plan.
- Include a letter of medical necessity from the physician and speech-language pathologist, with device specifications, access method, mounting needs, and repair/replacement plan.
- Respect self-determination. She is the user; a device she will not use is not medically effective. Bring her into the trial and document her preferences. If she chooses a simpler tablet-based system plus a low-tech backup, that may be the more defensible and more successful prescription.
Revisit the plan as her communication needs change, especially if she returns to work.