Internal Medicine Program Directors' Perceptions About Accommodating Residents with Disabilities: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: While 26% of US adults are disabled, only 3.1 to 9.3% of practicing physicians report having a disability. Ableism within medical training and practice diminishes physician diversity and wellbeing and contributes to healthcare disparities. OBJECTIVE: Explore physician barriers to disability equity and inclusion by examining internal medicine (IM) program directors' (PD) perspectives about recruiting and accommodating residents with disabilities (RWD). DESIGN: Qualitative study involving semi-structured virtual interviews (conducted December 2022-September 2023; analyzed through December 2023). PARTICIPANTS: PDs were recruited via email. Purposive sampling captured program diversity in size, location, and affiliations. Convenience sampling ensured PD diversity by gender, race/ethnicity, and age. APPROACH: Coders analyzed thematic and discursive content of interview transcripts to characterize PD perspectives about RWDs and accommodations. KEY RESULTS: Of the 15 programs represented, 4 had ≤ 49 and 8 had ≥ 100 total residents. Three were community-based; the rest had academic affiliations. On average, PDs had 17 (SD 8.2) years in practice. Most (11/15) identified as White race; 8/15 as female; and none as disabled. PDs characterized disability as a source of grit and empathy but also as an intrinsic deficit. They worried RWDs could have unpredictable absences and clinical incompetencies. Perceived accommodation challenges included inexperience, workload distribution, information asymmetry about accommodation needs or options, barriers to disclosure (e.g., discrimination concerns), and insufficient accommodation advertising. Perceived facilitators included advanced planning; clear, publicized processes; and access to expertise (e.g., occupational health, ombudsmen). CONCLUSIONS: PDs held contradictory views of RWDs. PD insights revealed opportunities to alleviate PD-RWD information asymmetry in recruitment/accommodation processes, which could help align needs and improve representation and inclusion.

Burnout Among Physicians With Disabilities.

This survey study examines reported experiences of burnout, including emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, among physicians with disability.

Outcomes of the Main Residency Match for Applicants With Disability.

This cohort study assesses match rates of US applicants with and without disability into specialty residence programs.

Medical Student Burnout by Race, Ethnicity, and Multiple Disability Status.

This cohort study examines the prevalence of burnout among students underrepresented in medicine by race and ethnicity with multiple disability types.

Equitable Access to Telehealth and Other Services for Deaf People During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: Deaf people who use American Sign Language (ASL) with low self-perceived ability to understand spoken information face inequitable access to health care due to systemic barriers. Methods: We conducted interviews with 266 deaf ASL users at baseline (May-Aug 2020) and 244 deaf ASL users at follow-up (3 months). Questions addressed (1) access to interpretation during in-person visits; (2) whether they visited clinics (3) or emergency departments (EDs); and (4) telehealth use. Analyses involved univariate and multivariable logistic regressions across levels of perceived ability to understand spoken language. Results: Less than a third were aged >65 (22.8%); Black, Indigenous, People of Color (28.6%), or LGBTQ+ (31.1%); and had no college degree (30.6%). More respondents reported outpatient visits at follow-up (63.9%) than at baseline (42.3%). Ten more respondents reported going to urgent care or an ED at follow-up than at baseline. At follow-up interviews, 57% of deaf ASL respondents with high perceived ability to understand spoken language reported receiving interpretation at clinic visits compared to 32% of ASL respondents with low perceived ability to understand spoken language (p<0.01). Telehealth and ED visits showed no between-group differences for low versus high perceived ability to understand spoken language. Discussion: Our study is the first to explore deaf ASL users' access to telehealth and outpatient encounters over time during the pandemic. The U.S. health care system is designed for people who have high perceived ability to understand spoken information. Systemic access to health care, including telehealth and clinics, must be made consistently equitable for deaf people who require accessible communication.

Disability, program access, empathy and burnout in US medical students: A national study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate whether self-disclosed disability and self-reported program access are associated with measures of empathy and burnout in a national sample of US medical students. METHODS: The authors obtained data from students who responded to the Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) Year 2 Questionnaire (Y2Q) in 2019 and 2020. Data included demographic characteristics, personal variables, learning environment indicators, measures of burnout (Oldenburg Burnout Inventory for Medical Students), empathy (Interpersonal Reactivity Index) and disability-related questions, including self-reported disability, disability category and program access. Associations between disability status, program access, empathy and burnout were assessed using multivariable logistic regression models accounting for YQ2 demographic, personal-related and learning environment measures. RESULTS: Overall, 23 898 (54.2%) provided disability data and were included. Of those, 2438 (10.2%) self-reported a disability. Most medical students with disabilities (SWD) self-reported having program access through accommodations (1215 [49.8%]) or that accommodations were not required for access (824 [33.8%]). Multivariable models identified that compared with students without disabilities, SWD with and without program access presented higher odds of high exhaustion (1.50 [95% CI, 1.34-1.69] and 2.59 [95% CI, 1.93-3.49], respectively) and lower odds of low empathy (0.75 [95% CI, 0.67-.85] and 0.68 [95% CI, 0.52-0.90], respectively). In contrast, multivariable models for disengagement identified that SWD reporting lack of program access presented higher odds of high disengagement compared to students without disabilities (1.43 [95% CI, 1.09-1.87], whereas SWD with program access did not (1.09 [95% CI, 0.97-1.22]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher odds of high exhaustion, SWD were less likely to present low empathy regardless of program access, and SWD with program access did not differ from students without disabilities in terms of disengagement. These findings add to our understanding of the characteristics and experiences of SWD including their contributions as empathic future physicians.

Patient And Coworker Mistreatment Of Physicians With Disabilities.

Physicians from underrepresented groups are at greater risk of experiencing mistreatment from coworkers and patients, including offensive remarks, physical harm, threats of physical harm, and unwanted sexual advances. These can have far-reaching negative consequences for the physicians' personal and professional lives. This study used data from a nationally representative sample of physicians to examine workplace mistreatment experienced by physicians with disabilities and determine whether physicians with disabilities are more likely to experience mistreatment in their workplace than physicians without disabilities. Compared with their nondisabled peers, physicians with disabilities had a significantly higher likelihood of experiencing every type of mistreatment from both patients and coworkers. Our findings suggest the need for disability-focused anti-mistreatment policies and practices.

Technical Standards from Newly Established Medical Schools: A Review of Disability Inclusive Practices.

INTRODUCTION: Technical standards document US medical school's nonacademic criteria necessary for admission, persistence, and graduation and communicate the school's commitment to disability inclusion and accommodation but are considered one of the largest barriers for students with disabilities. Calls for more inclusive technical standards have increased in recent years, yet the impact of this work on changing technical standards has not been measured.The establishment of 15 new US MD- and DO-granting medical schools between 2017 to 2020 offered a unique opportunity to evaluate differences in the inclusive nature of newly developed technical standards. METHOD: We conducted a document analysis of 15 newly formed medical schools' technical standards to determine the availability and inclusive nature of the standards as they pertain to students with sensory and mobility disabilities. Technical standards were coded for: ease of obtaining technical standards, the school's stated willingness to provide reasonable accommodations, the origin of responsibility for accommodation request and implementation, and the school's openness to intermediaries or auxiliary aids. RESULTS: Of the 15 schools, 73% of the technical standards were not easy to locate online. Few (13%) included language that support disability accommodations. Most (73%) used language that was coded as 'restrictive' for students with physical or sensory disabilities. Coding of the newly accredited US MD and DO medical schools suggests that newly created technical standards are more restrictive than those in previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to create more inclusive technical standards have not yet been realized. Newly formed US MD- and DO-granting medical schools may perpetuate historically restrictive technical standards that serve as barriers to applicants with disabilities. Future research should evaluate the role of medical school accrediting bodies to go beyond simply requiring technical standards to ensuring that the standards are readily available and appropriately convey the availability of reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities.

The Performance and Trajectory of Medical Students With Disabilities: Results From a Multisite, Multicohort Study.

PURPOSE: To conduct a post-Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 multisite, multicohort study called the Pathways Project to assess the performance and trajectory of medical students with disabilities (SWDs). METHOD: From June to December 2020, the authors conducted a matched cohort study of SWDs and nondisabled controls from 2 graduating cohorts (2018 and 2019) across 11 U.S. MD-granting medical schools. Each SWD was matched with 2 controls, one from their institution and, whenever possible, one from their cohort for Medical College Admission Test score and self-reported gender. Outcome measures included final attempt Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores, time to graduation, leave of absence, matching on first attempt, and matching to primary care. RESULTS: A total of 171 SWDs and 341 controls were included; the majority of SWDs had cognitive/learning disabilities (118/171, 69.0%). Compared with controls, SWDs with physical/sensory disabilities had similar times to graduation (88.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 77.0, 100.0 vs 95.1%, 95% CI: 90.3, 99.8; P = .20), Step 1 scores (229.6 vs 233.4; P = .118), and match on first attempt (93.9%, 95% CI: 86.9, 100.0 vs 94.6%, 95% CI: 91.8, 97.4; P = .842), while SWDs with cognitive/learning disabilities had lower Step 1 scores (219.4; P < .001) and were less likely to graduate on time (81.2%, 95% CI: 69.2, 93.2; P = .003) and match on first attempt (85.3%, 95% CI: 78.0, 92.7; P = .009). Accommodated SWDs had Step 1 scores that were 5.9 points higher than nonaccommodated SWDs (95% CI: -0.7, 12.5; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Structural barriers remain for SWDs with cognitive/learning disabilities, which could be partially mitigated by accommodations on high-stakes exams.

Patient and Health Care Worker Perceptions of Communication and Ability to Identify Emotion When Wearing Standard and Transparent Masks.

Importance: Adoption of mask wearing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic alters daily communication. Objective: To assess communication barriers associated with mask wearing in patient-clinician interactions and individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pilot cross-sectional survey study included the general population, health care workers, and health care workers who are deaf or hard of hearing in the United States. Volunteers were sampled via an opt-in survey panel and nonrandomized convenience sampling. The general population survey was conducted between January 5 and January 8, 2021. The health care worker surveys were conducted between December 3, 2020, and January 3, 2021. Respondents viewed 2 short videos of a study author wearing both a standard and transparent N95 mask and answered questions regarding mask use, communication, preference, and fit. Surveys took 15 to 20 minutes to complete. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants' perceptions were assessed surrounding the use of both mask types related to communication and the ability to express emotions. Results: The national survey consisted of 1000 participants (mean [SD] age, 48.7 [18.5] years; 496 [49.6%] women) with a response rate of 92.25%. The survey of general health care workers consisted of 123 participants (mean [SD] age, 49.5 [9.0] years; 84 [68.3%] women), with a response rate of 11.14%. The survey of health care workers who are deaf or hard of hearing consisted of 45 participants (mean [SD] age, 54.5 [9.0] years; 30 [66.7%] women) with a response rate of 23.95%. After viewing a video demonstrating a study author wearing a transparent N95 mask, 781 (78.1%) in the general population, 109 general health care workers (88.6%), and 38 health care workers who are deaf or hard of hearing (84.4%) were able to identify the emotion being expressed, in contrast with 201 (20.1%), 25 (20.5%), and 11 (24.4%) for the standard opaque N95 mask. In the general population, 450 (45.0%) felt positively about interacting with a health care worker wearing a transparent mask; 76 general health care workers (61.8%) and 37 health care workers who are deaf or hard of hearing (82.2%) felt positively about wearing a transparent mask to communicate with patients. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that transparent masks could help improve communication during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing.

Deaf adults at higher risk for severe illness: COVID-19 information preference and perceived health consequences.

OBJECTIVES: This study explores deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) individuals' preferred sources of information for COVID-19 and their perceptions of developing severe illness from COVID-19 given underlying medical conditions. METHODS: A national online bilingual American Sign Language/English survey was conducted from April 17 to May 1, 2020. Weighted sample of 474 DHH adults living in the United States. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine independent associations of sociodemographic variables and health indicators with perceived COVID-19 health consequences. RESULTS: About 44% of the medical condition sample used the Internet (English-based text) first for COVID-19 information, followed by TV (24%). Only 1% selected healthcare provider as the go-to source; the remainder got information from family or friends. Perceived health consequences increased with age (adjusted OR = 1.04; CI 95% = 1.02, 1.06). At-risk respondents who self-identified as persons of color were nearly three times more likely to believe that their health will be severely affected by COVID-19 compared to respondents who self-identified as white (adjusted OR = 2.94; CI 95% = 1.20, 7.18). CONCLUSIONS: Perception of COVID-19 health consequences vary among DHH adults at higher risk for severe illness. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Information delivery methods must be flexible and comprehensive to meet the diverse community's needs, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

National Prevalence of Disability and Clinical Accommodations in Medical Education.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate and report the national prevalence of disability across undergraduate medical education (UME) and examine differences in the category of disability, and accommodation practices between allopathic (MD)- and osteopathic (DO)-granting programs. METHODS: Between May 20 and June 30, 2020, 75% of institutional representatives at eligible DO schools responded to a web-based survey. The survey assessed the aggregate prevalence of disabled DO students, prevalence of DO students by category of disability, and prevalence of accommodations granted. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results. Using 2019 MD data, comparisons were made between MD and DO programs to calculate overall prevalence and differences in accommodation practices across undergraduate medical education. RESULTS: DO-granting programs reported a disability prevalence of 4.27% of the total enrollment. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), psychological disabilities, and chronic health disabilities were reported most frequently. DO-granting programs reported higher rates of ADHD than the MD-granting program. The national pooled prevalence of disability across MD- and DO-granting programs was 4.52%. MD-granting programs reported a higher number of students with disabilities and higher rates of psychological disabilities when compared with DO-granting programs. One hundred percent of DO students disclosing disability received some form of accommodation. General clinical accommodations were more frequently provided in MD-granting programs when compared to DO-granting programs. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first comprehensive prevalence of US medical student disability and accommodations. Additionally, these data may serve as a benchmark for DO programs, with implications for curricular development, instructional planning and disability support, and resource allocation in medical education.

The Unexamined Diversity: Disability Policies and Practices in US Graduate Medical Education Programs.

BACKGROUND: Graduate medical education (GME) institutions must ensure equal access for trainees with disabilities through appropriate and reasonable accommodations and policies. To date, no comprehensive review of the availability and inclusiveness of GME policies for residents with disabilities exists. OBJECTIVE: We examined institutions' compliance with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements and alignment with Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) policy considerations. METHODS: Between June and August 2019, we conducted a directed content analysis of GME institutional policies using the AAMC report on disability considerations and the ACGME institutional requirements as a framework. RESULTS: Of the 47 GME handbooks available for review, 32 (68%) included a disability policy. Forty-one of the 47 (87%) handbooks maintained a nondiscrimination statement that included disability. Twelve of the 32 (38%) handbooks included a specific disability policy and language that encouraged disclosure, and 17 (53%) included a statement about the confidential documentation used to determine reasonable accommodations. Nineteen of the 32 (59%) maintained a clear procedure for disclosing disabilities and requesting accommodations. CONCLUSIONS: While disability policies are present in many of the largest GME institutions, it is not yet a standardized practice. For institutions maintaining a disability policy, many lack key elements identified as best practices in the AAMC considerations.