Deafness among physicians and trainees: a national survey

What impact does widening participation to medicine have on the medical workforce in the UK: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Widening participation in medicine refers to the recruitment policy of encouraging those who are traditionally under-represented in medical school. Whilst research in the UK has investigated the processes around improving participation through recruitment and selection to medical schools, there is less focus around the period after medical school and how students from widening participation backgrounds fare in the workforce.

METHODS

This study employed scoping review methodology to collate, map and summarise research in the field. Basic numerical analysis and thematic analysis were performed on the included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies were included in this scoping review. The majority of included studies were perspective pieces and cohort studies. There was a paucity of studies reporting around the impact of widening participation of doctors with a disability on the workforce. Four themes emerged from the thematic analysis: (1) promoting diversity; (2) boosting recruitment and retention; (3) improving representation and balance; and (4) perpetuating inequalities.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review highlighted positive effects on the workforce of widening participation. Efforts should be undertaken to ensure widening participation students do not experience ongoing inequality in their subsequent careers on qualification from medical school. The research field would benefit from further study exploring the impact of disability on the medical workforce, and qualitative enquiry to better investigate the experiences of widening participation students in the workforce.

"We Need a Seismic Shift": Disabled Student Perspectives on Disability Inclusion in U.S. Medical Education

PURPOSE

Students with disabilities have inequitable access to medical education, despite widespread attention to their inclusion. Although systemic barriers and their adverse effects on medical student performance are well documented, few studies include disabled students' first-person accounts. Existing first-person accounts are limited by their focus predominantly on students who used accommodations. This study bridged these gaps by analyzing a national dataset of medical students with disabilities to understand their perceptions of disability inclusion in U.S. medical education.

METHOD

The authors analyzed 674 open-text responses by students with disabilities from the 2019 and 2020 Association of American Medical Colleges Year Two Questionnaire responding to the prompt, "Use the space below if you would like to share anything about your experiences regarding disability and medical school." Following reflexive thematic analysis principles, the authors coded the data using an inductive semantic approach to develop and refine themes. The authors used the political-relational model of disability to interpret themes.

RESULTS

Student responses were wide-ranging in experience. The authors identified key dimensions of the medical education system that influenced student experiences: program structure, processes, people, and culture. These dimensions informed the changes students perceived as possible to support their access to education and whether pursuing such change would be acceptable. In turn, students took action to navigate the system, using administrative, social, and internal mechanisms to manage disability.

CONCLUSIONS

Key dimensions of medical school affect student experiences of and interactions with disability inclusion, demonstrating the political-relational production of disability. Findings confirm earlier studies on disability inclusion that suggest systemic change is necessary, while adding depth to understand how and why students do not pursue accommodations. On the basis of student accounts, the authors identify existing resources to help medical schools remedy deficits in their systems to improve their disability inclusion practice.

New2Neuropsychology (N2N): An organization to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in neuropsychology

OBJECTIVE

To introduce New2Neuropsychology (N2N), an organization that seeks to increase recruitment of historically underrepresented minoritized (URM) students, and to examine preliminary data on N2N's impact and effectiveness in increasing knowledge about neuropsychology for URM students.

METHOD

This paper reviews relevant literature on factors informing the development of N2N. We also present descriptive data on N2N's impact to date, and results of pre- and post- surveys for presentations about neuropsychology delivered to 90 college students (mean age = 24.23, 64.4% juniors or seniors) between November 2021 - March 2023.

RESULTS

N2N has reached >500 students in events across 27 schools and, with the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology, disseminated $84,000 in scholarships to URM students. N2N presentation attendees reported increased understanding of neuropsychology and the training pathway (ps < .001, Cohen's ds = 0.94 - 1.73) and increased confidence in their ability to become neuropsychologists (p < .001, d = 0.41). There were no overall pre-post differences for interest in pursuing a career in neuropsychology (p > .05); however, a subset of students who reported low interest at baseline (n = 57) reported a statistically significant increase in their interest post-presentation (p < .01, d = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

To date, N2N has progressed toward its goal, showing preliminary success increasing knowledge about neuropsychology for URM students. With continued development and support, N2N seeks to transform the pathway to neuropsychology for URM students, expanding accessibility of N2N resources across diverse groups and connecting URM students to neuropsychology research and clinical experiences.

Developing an Inclusive Training Environment: Accommodations in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Residency Training for Residents With a Disability

ABSTRACT

This study examines the challenges and accommodations for medical residents with disabilities within physical medicine and rehabilitation training programs. Medical residency presents unique stressors and responsibilities, with the potential for added complexities for residents with disabilities. Few data exist regarding the prevalence and experiences of people with disabilities as medical trainees and the limited studies available highlight an underrepresentation of individuals with disability in medical training and practice. Through cross-sectional surveys administered to physical medicine and rehabilitation residents, this research assesses disability prevalence, characterizations, barriers to training, and accommodations provided. Of 140 respondents, 9.3% identified as having disabilities, with varying prevalence among genders and disability types. Results revealed distinct challenges for residents with mobility and nonmobility disabilities, spanning learning environments, standardized testing, procedural skills, and accessibility. Self-provided accommodations exceeded program-provided ones, indicating room for improvement in program support. These findings underscore the need for proactive dialog between residents and leadership to address barriers, enhance accommodations, and create an inclusive training environment. The study's insights emphasize the importance of advocating for equal opportunities and cultivating supportive conditions to enable individuals with disabilities to thrive in medical residency programs, ultimately contributing to more diverse and inclusive medical communities.

What makes a 'good doctor'? A critical discourse analysis of perspectives from medical students with lived experience as patients

What constitutes a 'good doctor' varies widely across groups and contexts. While patients prioritise communication and empathy, physicians emphasise medical expertise, and medical students describe a combination of the two as professional ideals. We explored the conceptions of the 'good doctor' held by medical learners with chronic illnesses or disabilities who self-identify as patients to understand how their learning as both patients and future physicians aligns with existing medical school curricula. We conducted 10 semistructured interviews with medical students with self-reported chronic illness or disability and who self-identified as patients. We used critical discourse analysis to code for dimensions of the 'good doctor'. In turn, using concepts of Bakhtinian intersubjectivity and the hidden curriculum we explored how these discourses related to student experiences with formal and informal curricular content.According to participants, dimensions of the 'good doctor' included empathy, communication, attention to illness impact and boundary-setting to separate self from patients. Students reported that formal teaching on empathy and illness impact were present in the formal curriculum, however ultimately devalued through day-to-day interactions with faculty and peers. Importantly, teaching on boundary-setting was absent from the formal curriculum, however participants independently developed reflective practices to cultivate these skills. Moreover, we identified two operating discourses of the 'good doctor': an institutionalised discourse of the 'able doctor' and a counterdiscourse of the 'doctor with lived experience' which created a space for reframing experiences with illness and disability as a source of expertise rather than a source of stigma. Perspectives on the 'good doctor' carry important implications for how we define professional roles, and hold profound consequences for medical school admissions, curricular teaching and licensure. Medical students with lived experiences of illness and disability offer critical insights about curricular messages of the 'good doctor' based on their experiences as patients, providing important considerations for curriculum and faculty development.

Reframing Our Health Care System for Patients With Hearing Loss

PURPOSE

Nearly 20% of U.S. Americans report a hearing loss, yet our current health care system is poorly designed and equipped to effectively care for these individuals. Individuals with hearing loss report communication breakdowns, inaccessible health information, reduced awareness and training by health care providers, and decreased satisfaction while struggling with inadequate health literacy. These all contribute to health inequities and increased health care expenditures and inefficiencies. It is time to reframe the health care system for these individuals using existing models of best practices and accessibility to mitigate inequities and improve quality of care.

METHOD

A review of system-, clinic-, provider-, and patient-level barriers, along with existing and suggested efforts to improve care for individuals with hearing loss, are presented.

RESULTS

These strategies include improving screening and identification of hearing loss, adopting universal design and inclusion principles, implementing effective communication approaches, leveraging assistive technologies and training, and diversifying a team to better care for patients with hearing loss. Patients should also be encouraged to seek social support and resources from hearing loss organizations while leveraging technologies to help facilitate communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The strategies described introduce actionable steps that can be made at the system, clinic, provider, and patient levels. With implementation of these steps, significant progress can be made to more proactively meet the needs of patients with hearing loss. Presentation Video: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21215843.

No Taxation Without Representation: Addressing the "Deaf Tax" in Academic Medicine

Minority faculty and trainees experience unique factors that can hinder their success in academic medicine-collectively referred to as "minority tax." The authors argue that a similar "deaf tax" of unique barriers, experiences, and responsibilities disproportionately burdens deaf trainees and faculty. The cumulative effects of these deaf tax experiences represent a significant disadvantage for deaf professionals in academic medicine. Through a combination of relevant literature and the authors' personal experiences as deaf professionals, several causative domains of deaf tax are outlined, including the fight for reasonable accommodations, prejudice and discrimination, training and diversity barriers, and a lack of deaf mentorship. In addition, a number of practical steps are offered for institutional leaders to consider implementing to improve equity and inclusion in academic medicine, including facilitating language equity and communication access, implementing deaf awareness training, fostering effective deaf mentorship, and promoting deaf professionals into leadership positions. Addressing these issues would help remove the obstacles that create the high deaf tax burden and lower the near-insurmountable barrier of entry, advancement, and retention in academic medicine for deaf professionals.

Exploring accommodations along the education to employment pathway for deaf and hard of hearing healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) people are an underserved population and underrepresented among healthcare professionals. A major barrier to success for DHH healthcare professionals is obtaining effective accommodations during education and employment. Our objective: describe DHH individuals' experiences with accommodations in healthcare education.

METHODS

We used an online survey and multipronged snowball sampling to recruit participants who identify as DHH and who had applied to a U.S. health professional school (regardless of acceptance status). One hundred forty-eight individuals representing multiple professions responded; 51 had completed their training. Over 80% had been accepted to, were currently enrolled, or had completed health professions schools or residency programs, and/or were employed. The survey included questions addressing experiences applying to health professions programs and employment; satisfaction with accommodations in school and training; having worked with a disability resource professional (DRP); and depression screening.

RESULTS

Use and type of accommodation varied widely. While in school, respondents reported spending a mean of 2.1 h weekly managing their accommodations. Only 50% were highly satisfied with the accommodations provided by their programs. Use of disability resource providers (DRPs) for accommodations was highest during school (56%) and less frequent during post-graduate training (20%) and employment (14%). Respondents who transitioned directly from school to employment (versus via additional training) were more satisfied with their accommodations during school and were more likely to find employment (p = 0.02). Seventeen respondents screened positive for risk of depression; a positive screen was statistically associated with lower school accommodation satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

DHH people study and practice across many health professions. While respondents were mostly successful in entering health professions programs, accommodation experiences and satisfaction varied. Satisfaction with accommodations was related to successful employment and wellness. Low satisfaction was associated with higher likelihood of depression symptoms. To increase representation in the workforce, healthcare professional schools, training programs, and employers should enhance support for the learning and working climates for people with disabilities.

Increasing inclusivity in precision medicine research: Views of deaf and hard of hearing individuals

PURPOSE

Deaf/hard of hearing (HoH) individuals can benefit from precision medicine research (PMR) but are underrepresented in mainstream health research and may experience barriers to participation. Understanding their views and concerns about PMR can inform processes to foster inclusion in future studies and reduce health disparities.

METHODS

We administered an online disability-accessible survey to explore perceptions of PMR among, inter alia, deaf/HoH individuals. Questions included willingness to participate, interest in results, and barriers and facilitators to participation. Analyses describe results for participants who self-identified their primary condition as being deaf/HoH and compared results for key demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 267 deaf/HoH participants completed the survey. Interest in PMR was high, although many reported inaccessible facilities and information about medical research; 51% reported that communication with health professionals is a barrier. Concerns about harm, lack of access to benefits, misinformed allocation decisions, and limited disability-relevant knowledge among researchers and health care providers were significant. Differences across racial, ethnic, and sex groups were observed and are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Strategies to remove barriers to participation of deaf/HoH individuals in PMR are suggested. Distrust is a major challenge for cohort diversity, and research is needed to identify measures to increase the trustworthiness of PMR endeavors.

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.

New Pathways for Successfully Reducing Health Inequities Experienced by the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Community

In this Invited Commentary, the author briefly reviews 3 articles from this issue of Academic Medicine that serve as a welcome addition to the literature in the quest to reduce the significant health inequities experienced by the Deaf and hard of hearing (DHoH) community. The author connects these articles to his own story as a DHoH medical student navigating the medical education system and also to his perspective as a practicing family medicine physician in a rural community health center. The path to bridging these health inequities is multifactorial. This includes identifying and eliminating barriers to increasing DHoH physician representation in the workforce, enhancing DHoH cultural competency in medical education, and using advances in technology through the creation of communication access plans and language access teams in hospitals and medical clinics for DHoH patients.

Health Care Needs of Deaf Signers: The Case for Culturally Competent Health Care Providers

There is a need for culturally competent health care providers (HCPs) to provide care to deaf signers, who are members of a linguistic and cultural minority group. Many deaf signers have lower health literacy levels due to deprivation of incidental learning opportunities and inaccessibility of health-related materials, increasing their risk for poorer health outcomes. Communication barriers arise because HCPs are ill-prepared to serve this population, with deaf signers reporting poor-quality interactions. This has translated to errors in diagnosis, patient nonadherence, and ineffective health information, resulting in mistrust of the health care system and reluctance to seek treatment. Sign language interpreters have often not received in-depth medical training, compounding the dynamic process of medical interpreting. HCPs should thus become more culturally competent, empowering them to provide cultural- and language-concordant services to deaf signers. HCPs who received training in cultural competency showed increased knowledge and confidence in interacting with deaf signers. Similarly, deaf signers reported more positive experiences when interacting with medically certified interpreters, HCPs with sign language skills, and practitioners who made an effort to improve communication. However, cultural competency programs within health care education remain inconsistent. Caring for deaf signers requires complex, integrated competencies that need explicit attention and practice repeatedly in realistic, authentic learning tasks ordered from simple to complex. Attention to the needs of deaf signers can start early in the curriculum, using examples of deaf signers in lectures and case discussions, followed by explicit discussions of Deaf cultural norms and the potential risks of low written and spoken language literacy. Students can subsequently engage in role plays with each other or representatives of the local signing deaf community. This would likely ensure that future HCPs are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to provide appropriate care and ensure equitable health care access for deaf signers.

Establishing a Deaf and American Sign Language Inclusive Residency Program

Improving diversity in residency programs has been increasingly emphasized as a means to address gender, racial, and ethnic disparities in medicine. However, limited attention has been given to the potential benefits of training physicians with differences other than gender or race and ethnicity. Americans with a disability represent about 27% of the U.S. population, whereas 1%-3% of physician trainees report having a disability. In 2013, a national survey identified only 86 physicians or trainees reporting deafness or hearing loss as a disability. To date, there are no published strategies on how to create an inclusive program for Deaf trainees. Herein, the authors report on the development of a Deaf and American Sign Language (ASL) inclusive residency program that can serve as an academic model for other programs, in any medical specialty, seeking to create an accessible training program for Deaf physicians and that can be adapted for trainees with other disabilities. In March 2017, the radiation oncology residency program at Johns Hopkins University matched an ASL-signing Deaf resident who would begin the program in July 2018. In preparation, department leadership engaged key stakeholders and leaders within the university's health system and among the department faculty, residents, and staff as well as the incoming resident to create an ASL inclusive program. A 5-step transition process for the training program was ultimately developed and implemented. The authors focused on engaging the Deaf trainee and interpreters, engaging health system and departmental leadership, contracting a training consultant and developing oral and written training materials for faculty and staff, and optimizing the workspace via accommodations. Through collaborative preparation, a Deaf and ASL-signing resident was successfully integrated into the residency program. The proposed 5-step transition process provides an effective, engaging model to encourage other institutions that are seeking to employ similar inclusivity initiatives.

A review of mentoring deaf and hard-of-hearing scholars

Diversification of the scientific workforce usually focuses on recruitment and retention of women and underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities but often overlooks deaf and hard-of hearing (D/HH) persons. Usually classified as a disability group, such persons are often members of their own sociocultural linguistic minority and deserve unique support. For them, access to technical and social information is often hindered by communication- and/or language-centered barriers, but securing and using communication access services is just a start. Critical aspects of training D/HH scientists as part of a diversified workforce necessitates: (a) educating hearing persons in cross-cultural dynamics pertaining to deafness, sign language, and Deaf culture; (b) ensuring access to formal and incidental information to support development of professional soft skills; and (c) understanding that institutional infrastructure change may be necessary to ensure success. Mentorship and training programs that implement these criteria are now creating a new generation of D/HH scientists.

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.

Physician Workforce Disparities and Patient Care: A Narrative Review

Background: Ensuring the strength of the physician workforce is essential to optimizing patient care. Challenges that undermine the profession include inequities in advancement, high levels of burnout, reduced career duration, and elevated risk for mental health problems, including suicide. This narrative review explores whether physicians within four subpopulations represented in the workforce at levels lower than predicted from their numbers in the general population-women, racial and ethnic minorities in medicine, sexual and gender minorities, and people with disabilities-are at elevated risk for these problems, and if present, how these problems might be addressed to support patient care. In essence, the underlying question this narrative review explores is as follows: Do physician workforce disparities affect patient care? While numerous articles and high-profile reports have examined the relationship between workforce diversity and patient care, to our knowledge, this is the first review to examine the important relationship between diversity-related workforce disparities and patient care. Methods: Five databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and EBSCO Discovery Service) were searched by a librarian. Additional resources were included by authors, as deemed relevant to the investigation. Results: The initial database searches identified 440 potentially relevant articles. Articles were categorized according to subtopics, including (1) underrepresented physicians and support for vulnerable patient populations; (2) factors that could exacerbate the projected physician deficit; (3) methods of addressing disparities among underrepresented physicians to support patient care; or (4) excluded (n=155). The authors identified another 220 potentially relevant articles. Of 505 potentially relevant articles, 199 (39.4%) were included in this review. Conclusions: This report demonstrates an important gap in the literature regarding the impact of physician workforce disparities and their effect on patient care. This is a critical public health issue and should be urgently addressed in future research and considered in clinical practice and policy decision-making.

Designated Interpreters: A Model to Promote the Diversity and Inclusion of Deaf Professionals in Academic Medicine

PROBLEM

Deaf professionals who use American Sign Language (ASL) are a growing population in academic medicine. Reasonable accommodations for this group include providing an ASL interpreter. Many institutions contract with external agencies to provide ad hoc interpreters, but this model has hidden costs for deaf professionals and institutions.

APPROACH

The University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry (URSMD) uses the designated interpreter model in which interpreters are on staff and embedded with deaf professionals so they can learn both the work environment and the deaf professionals' specialized science and medicine content. This model addresses many of the limitations of the external agency approach and better facilitates the inclusion of deaf professionals in the institution.

OUTCOMES

This model has been in use at URSMD since 1990 but has seen exponential growth recently (increasing from 3 deaf professionals with designated interpreters in 2011 to a peak of 17 in 2016). Designated interpreters have worked in different research and clinical settings from dentistry and nursing to community and global health. This growth highlights the increasing number of deaf professionals in medicine and the need to train more designated interpreters.

NEXT STEPS

In response to this growing demand, URSMD is developing an ASL Interpreting in Medicine and Science program, a master's degree-level program to train interpreters who are bilingual in ASL and English to be designated interpreters. The designated interpreter model is one step toward creating an environment that is fully inclusive of deaf professionals to the benefit of the whole institution.

Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Learners in Emergency Medicine

Approximately 23% of Americans over age 12 have some level of hearing loss.1 Emergency departments can reduce healthcare barriers for deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHoH) patients through improved patient-physician communication. DHoH students, once they become physicians, may provide one mechanism for reducing existing healthcare disparities and communication barriers for DHoH patients, and may be more adept with patients facing other communication barriers. A renewed interest in disability access and a commitment to social justice has increased efforts toward the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in medical education and training. Despite this increased interest and a growing number of DHoH students entering medical education, DHoH students continue to be dissuaded from specialty careers such as emergency medicine (EM) over concerns regarding effective communication and ability. Given the academic medicine communities' commitment to diversity, a recounting of the successful inclusion of DHoH students in EM can benefit medical education and practice. In this account, the authors reflect on the successful experiences of a visiting DHoH medical student in an academic EM rotation at a Level I trauma hospital that serves a diverse population, and they identify the potential challenges for DHoH students in an EM setting, offer solutions including reasonable accommodations, and provide commentary on the legal requirements for providing full and equal access for DHoH students. We secured permission from the student to share the contents of this article prior to publication.

U.S. Medical Schools' Compliance With the Americans With Disabilities Act: Findings From a National Study

PURPOSE

Physician diversity improves care for underserved populations, yet there are few physicians with disabilities. The authors examined the availability of technical standards (TSs) from U.S. medical schools (MD- and DO-granting) and evaluated these relative to intent to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

METHOD

Document analysis was conducted (2012-2014) on U.S. medical schools' TSs for hearing, visual, and mobility disabilities. Primary outcome measures were ease of obtaining TSs, willingness to provide reasonable accommodations, responsibility for accommodations, and acceptability of intermediaries or auxiliary aids.

RESULTS

TSs were available for 161/173 (93%) schools. While 146 (84%) posted these on their Web sites, 100 (58%) were located easily. Few schools, 53 (33%), had TSs specifically supporting accommodating disabilities; 79 (49%) did not clearly state policies, 6 (4%) were unsupportive, and 23 (14%) provided no information. Most schools, 98 (61%), lacked information on responsibility for providing accommodations, 33 (27%) provided accommodations, and 10 (6%) had students assume some responsibility. Approximately 40% allowed auxiliary aids (e.g., motorized scooter), but < 10% allowed intermediaries (e.g., sign language interpreter). Supportive schools were more likely to allow accommodations (P < .001), assume responsibility for accommodations (P < .001), and accept intermediaries (P < .002). DO-granting schools were more supportive for students with mobility disabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Most medical school TSs do not support provision of reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities as intended by the ADA. Further study is needed to understand how schools operationalize TSs and barriers to achieving ADA standards.

Commentary: What are the benefits of training deaf and hard-of-hearing doctors?

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHoH) individuals are underrepresented among physicians and physicians-in-training, yet this group is frequently overlooked in the diversity efforts of many medical training programs. The inclusion of DHoH individuals, with their diverse backgrounds, experiences, and struggles, contributes to medical education and health care systems in a variety of ways, including (1) a richer medical education experience for students and faculty resulting in greater disability awareness and knowledge about how to interact with and care for DHoH individuals and their families, (2) the provision of empathetic care desired by many patients and their families, including individuals who have a disability or chronic condition, and (3) the promotion of a more supportive and accessible professional environment for physicians, including older physicians in practice and as educators, who are experiencing age-associated decreased hearing acuity or other acquired disabilities.Today, many qualified DHoH individuals face barriers to pursuing medical careers even while physicians who become DHoH can continue to practice medicine. These barriers still exist two decades after the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and despite technological advancements and changing attitudes. In light of the findings by Moreland and colleagues, the authors of this commentary discuss reasons to include DHoH individuals in the physician workforce, explain why this group remains underrepresented among physicians, and suggest ways that medical schools and training programs can ensure fair application processes and inclusive educational opportunities for work with DHoH students who are interested in health care careers.