Prevalence of Disability and Use of Accommodation Among US Allopathic Medical School Students Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This survey study assesses self-disclosures of disability, disability types, and accommodation needs reported by US allopathic medical schools in 2021 vs 2015 and 2019.

Compassionate Off-Ramps: The Availability of Terminal Master's Degrees in US Medical Schools.

Medical students who underperform or find they are not a "good fit" for medicine have limited options. A terminal master's degree represents an exit alternative that recognizes students' completed coursework and acknowledges their commitment to the medical sciences. Although medical educators have called for the creation of such programs, termed "compassionate off-ramps," the prevalence of degree offerings in US programs is unknown. In the fall of 2020, a survey was sent to Student Affairs Deans at 141 LCME-accredited MD programs; 73 institutions responded (52%). Terminal master's degrees were offered by 19% of respondent institutions (n = 13). While 85% of those without a terminal master's (n = 48) endorsed degree benefits, only 36% (n = 21) had plans to create the degree. This study demonstrates that few US medical schools offer a terminal master's degree, leaving students who exit medicine with high levels of debt without an avenue for a degree to support employment or future academic pursuits. The authors identify implications for students, particularly those who are at a higher risk of failing Step 1, such as students who are underrepresented in medicine, socioeconomically disadvantaged, or who have a disability and are unaccommodated. Potential barriers to terminal master's program creation are identified and mitigating strategies are recommended.

Impact of USMLE Step-1 accommodation denial on US medical schools: A national survey.

INTRODUCTION: In 2019, 4.6% of US-MD students self-identified as students with disabilities (SWD); many of these students will require accommodations on the USMLE Step-1 examination. Given the high-stakes nature of Step-1 for medical school advancement and residency match, SWD denied accommodations on Step-1 face considerable consequences. To date no study has investigated the rate of accommodation denial and its impact on medical school operations. METHODS: To investigate the rate of accommodation denial and evaluate whether Step-1 accommodation denial impacts medical school operations, a 10-question survey was sent to Student Affairs Deans and disability resource professionals at all fully-accredited US-MD granting programs. Two open-ended questions were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-three of the 141 schools responded (52%). In the 2018-2019 academic year, 276 students from 73 schools applied for Step-1 accommodations. Of these, 144 (52%) were denied. Of those denied, 74/144 (51%) were delayed entry into the next phase of curriculum and 110/144 (76%) took the Step-1 exam unaccommodated. Of the 110 who took Step-1 without accommodations, 35/110 (32%) failed the exam, and 4/110 (3%) withdrew or were dismissed following exam failure. Schools reported varied investments of time and financial support for students denied accommodations, with most schools investing less than 20 hours (67%) and less than $1,000.00 (69%). Open-responses revealed details regarding the impact of denial on schools and students including frustration with process; financial and human resources allocation; delay in student progression; lack of resourcing and expertise; and emotional and financial burdens on students. DISCUSSION: Step-1 accommodation denial has non-trivial financial, operational, and career impacts on medical schools and students alike. The cause of accommodation denial in this population requires further exploration.

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.

Structural Barriers to Student Disability Disclosure in US-Allopathic Medical Schools.

INTRODUCTION: Leaders in medical education have expressed a commitment to increase medical student diversity, including those with disabilities. Despite this commitment there exists a large gap in the number of medical students self-reporting disability in anonymous demographic surveys and those willing to disclose and request accommodations at a school level. Structural elements for disclosing and requesting disability accommodations have been identified as a main barrier for students with disabilities in medical education, yet school-level practices for student disclosure at US-MD programs have not been studied. METHODS: In August 2020, a survey seeking to ascertain institutional disability disclosure structure was sent to student affairs deans at LCME fully accredited medical schools. Survey responses were coded according to their alignment with considerations from the AAMC report on disability and analyzed for any associations with the AAMC Organizational Characteristics Database and class size. RESULTS: Disability disclosure structures were collected for 98 of 141 eligible schools (70% response rate). Structures for disability disclosure varied among the 98 respondent schools. Sixty-four (65%) programs maintained a disability disclosure structure in alignment with AAMC considerations; 34 (35%) did not. No statistically significant relationships were identified between disability disclosure structures and AAMC organizational characteristics or class size. DISCUSSION: Thirty-five percent of LCME fully accredited MD program respondents continue to employ structures of disability disclosure that do not align with the considerations offered in the AAMC report. This structural non-alignment has been identified as a major barrier for medical students to accessing accommodations and may disincentivize disability disclosure. Meeting the stated calls for diversity will require schools to consider structural barriers that marginalize students with disabilities and make appropriate adjustments to their services to improve access.

Prevalence, Plans, and Perceptions: Disability in Family Medicine Residencies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Leading medical organizations including the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) espouse the value of a diverse physician workforce, including disability, yet there is a dearth of research about this population in graduate medical education (GME). More information is needed on the prevalence of disability in the resident population, plans to recruit residents with disabilities, and program perceptions of barriers to inclusion. The goal of this study was to better understand the prevalence of disability in the resident population, plans to recruit residents with disabilities, and program perceptions of barriers to disability inclusion and frequency of disability-related complaints and litigation. METHODS: Surveys were emailed to 200 department chairs via SurveyMonkey as part of a larger omnibus survey conducted by the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA). RESULTS: More than 30% of family medicine programs reported at least one faculty member with a disability, while 50% reported matriculating at least one resident with a disability in the previous 5 years. Programs with greater numbers of physicians with disabilities were more likely to have a plan to recruit residents with disabilities, and inadequate expertise was the largest perceived barrier to disability inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Employing faculty with disabilities may be the driving force for having an active plan to recruit residents with disabilities. In order to meet the stated diversity goals of medicine, programs will need to increase professional development around disability inclusion.

Disability Policies and Practices in Family Medicine Residencies: A CERA Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Increasing the diversity of family medicine residency programs includes matriculating residents with disabilities. Accrediting agencies and associations provide mandates and recommendations to assist programs with building inclusive policies and practices. The purpose of this study was (1) to assess programs' compliance with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandates and alignment with Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) best practices; (2) to understand perceptions of sources of accommodation funding; and (3) to document family medicine chairs' primary source of disability-related information. METHODS: Data were collected as part of the 2019 Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance Chairs' Survey. Respondents answered questions about disability policy, disability disclosure structure, source of accommodation funding, and source of information regarding disability. RESULTS: Half (56%) of responding chairs reported maintaining a disability policy in alignment with ACGME mandates, while half (52%) maintain a disability disclosure structure in opposition to AAMC recommendations. Funding sources for accommodation were reported as unknown (32.9%), the hospital system (27.1%), or the departmental budget (24.3%). Chairs listed human resources (50.7%) or diversity, equity, and inclusion offices (23.9%) as the main sources of disability guidance. CONCLUSIONS: The number of students with disabilities in medical education is growing, increasing the likelihood that family medicine residency programs will select and train residents with disabilities. Results from this study suggest an urgent need to review disability policy and processes within departments to ensure alignment with current guidance on disability inclusion. Department chairs, as institutional leaders, are well positioned to lead this change.

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.

Conducting health policy analysis in primary care research: turning clinical ideas into action.

Healthcare guidelines play a prominent role in the day-to-day practice of primary care providers, and health policy research leads to the formation of these guidelines. Health policy research is the multidisciplinary approach to public policy explaining the interaction between health institutions, special interests and theoretical constructs. In this article, we demonstrate how primary care providers can conduct high-impact health policy research using Eugene Bardach's eightfold policy analysis framework in a primary care context. In a medical case, a woman with a history of total hysterectomy had scheduled a visit for a Papanicolaou (Pap) smear screening test as part of a well-woman health check-up with a family medicine resident. Conflicting recommendations on Pap smear screening after total hysterectomy sparked an investigation using the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for conducting a health policy analysis. We illustrate broadly how clinical care dilemmas can be examined by using Bardach's broadly applicable health policy framework in order to inform meaningful policy change. Bardach's framework includes (1) defining the problem, (2) assembling evidence, (3) constructing alternatives, (4) selecting criteria, (5) projecting outcomes, (6) confronting trade-offs, (7) decision-making and (8) sharing the results of the process. The policy analysis demonstrated insufficient evidence to recommend Pap test screening after hysterectomy and the findings contributed to national recommendations. By following Bardach's steps, primary care researchers have a feasible and powerful tool for conducting meaningful health policy research and analysis that can influence clinical practice.

Medical Schools' Willingness to Accommodate Medical Students with Sensory and Physical Disabilities: Ethical Foundations of a Functional Challenge to "Organic" Technical Standards.

Students with sensory and physical disabilities are underrepresented in medical schools despite the availability of assistive technologies and accommodations. Unfortunately, many medical schools have adopted restrictive "organic" technical standards based on deficits rather than on the ability to do the work. Compelling ethical considerations of justice and beneficence should prompt change in this arena. Medical schools should instead embrace "functional" technical standards that permit accommodations for disabilities and update their admissions policies to promote applications from qualified students with disabilities. Medical schools thus should focus on what students with disabilities can do, rather than what they cannot do, because these students further diversify the health care profession and improve our ability to care for an expanding population of patients with disabilities.