Search

Between 1% and 2% of the U.S. population has an intellectual disability (ID) and often experience disparities in health care. Communication patterns and sedation use for routine medical procedures are important aspects of care for this population. We explored physicians' communication patterns and sedation use in caring for patients with significant levels of ID through a mailed survey of 1,400 physicians among seven specialties in outpatient settings (response rate = 61.0%). Among physicians who saw at least one patient with significant levels of ID in an average month, 74.8% reported usually/always communicating primarily with someone other than the patient. Among specialists, 85.5% (95% CI: 80.5%–90.5%) reported doing so, compared to 69.9% (95% CI: 64.4%–75.4%) for primary care physicians (p < 0.001). Also, 11.4% reported sedating at least one patient with significant levels of ID for a routine procedure. Three quarters of physicians reported communicating primarily with persons other than the patient usually or always—an approach that, in some instances, may not align with best medical practice. The percentage of physicians who report sedating at least one individual is associated with significant ID and the physician's volume of patients with significant ID.

About 15% of the global population-more than 1 billion people-have a disability. People with early-onset disability are now living into middle and older ages and are therefore at risk for adult cancer. Overall, disabled people are more disadvantaged in social determinants of health and are more likely to have risk factors associated with cancer than people without disabilities. People with disabilities often experience disparities in breast and cervical cancer screening compared with people who do not have disabilities, and patterns in colorectal cancer screening disparities are inconsistent. The minimal evidence that exists relating to the timeliness of cancer diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes for people with disabilities suggests differential treatment and higher cancer-related mortality than for people without disabilities. Worldwide, disabled people face barriers to obtaining cancer care, including inaccessible medical diagnostic equipment, ineffective communication accommodations, and potentially biased attitudes among clinicians. Ensuring equitable cancer care for people with disabilities will therefore require eliminating not only physical but also attitude-based barriers to their care.

People with serious mental illness (SMI) and intellectual disabilities and/or developmental disabilities (ID/DD) living in group homes (GHs) and residential staff are at higher risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death compared with the general population.We describe a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized trial to assess evidence-based infection prevention practices to prevent COVID-19 for residents with SMI or ID/DD and the staff in GHs. The trial will use a cluster randomized design in 400 state-funded GHs in Massachusetts for adults with SMI or ID/DD to compare effectiveness and implementation of "Tailored Best Practices" (TBP) consisting of evidence-based COVID-19 infection prevention practices adapted for residents with SMI and ID/DD and GH staff; to "General Best Practices" (GBP), consisting of required standard of care reflecting state and federal standard general guidelines for COVID-19 prevention in GHs. External (i.e., community-based research staff) and internal (i.e., GH staff leadership) personnel will facilitate implementation of TBP. The primary effectiveness outcome is incident SARS-CoV-2 infection and secondary effectiveness outcomes include COVID-19-related hospitalizations and mortality in GHs. The primary implementation outcomes are fidelity to TBP and rates of COVID-19 vaccination. Secondary implementation outcomes are adoption, adaptation, reach, and maintenance. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, and 15-months post-randomization.This study will advance knowledge on comparative effectiveness and implementation of two different strategies to prevent COVID-19-related infection, morbidity, and mortality and promote fidelity and adoption of these interventions in high-risk GHs for residents with SMI or ID/DD and staff.NCT04726371.

Although it has been more than 30 years since enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, people with disabilities continue to face physical access barriers, notably inaccessible medical diagnostic equipment, in clinical settings. Access barriers affect breast cancer screening and treatment for women with disabilities. We used standard diagnosis codes and natural language processing to screen electronic health records (EHRs) in a digital data repository from a large health care delivery system for patients with a pre-existing mobility disability who had been diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. We reviewed EHRs of 20 patients, using conventional content analysis to examine breast cancer diagnosis and treatment experiences. Clinicians noted challenges positioning patients for routine procedures, including manual breast exam, screening mammography, and breast biopsies. Given challenges accommodating disability for adjuvant therapies, mastectomy was favored over breast-conserving options despite early stages of diagnosis. Notations contained little information about proactive problem-solving for arranging accommodations. Notations described physical access barriers for breast cancer detection and treatment, with limited planning for mitigating barriers. Despite 2017 promulgation of federal Standards for Accessible Medical Diagnostic Equipment, implementing these standards requires further rulemaking.

More than sixty-one million Americans have disabilities, and increasing evidence documents that they experience health care disparities. Although many factors likely contribute to these disparities, one little-studied but potential cause involves physicians' perceptions of people with disability. In our survey of 714 practicing US physicians nationwide, 82.4 percent reported that people with significant disability have worse quality of life than nondisabled people. Only 40.7 percent of physicians were very confident about their ability to provide the same quality of care to patients with disability, just 56.5 percent strongly agreed that they welcomed patients with disability into their practices, and 18.1 percent strongly agreed that the health care system often treats these patients unfairly. More than thirty years after the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was enacted, these findings about physicians' perceptions of this population raise questions about ensuring equitable care to people with disability. Potentially biased views among physicians could contribute to persistent health care disparities affecting people with disability.

Berger and Miller (2021) assert that race and ethnicity based cultural competence is a failure because medicine grounds its conceptualization of cultural competence on a “flawed” understanding of r...

PURPOSE: Approximately 13% of the US population report mobility disability. People with mobility disability experience healthcare disparities, including lower rates of cancer screening and substandard cancer care compared with nondisabled people. We explored clinicians' reports of aspects of diagnosing and treating three common cancer types among persons with pre-existing mobility disability. METHODS: We used standard diagnosis codes and natural language processing to screen electronic health records (EHR) in the Research Patient Data Repository for patients with pre-existing chronic mobility impairment who were newly diagnosed with one of three common cancers (colorectal, prostate, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma) between 2005 and 2017. We eliminated numerous cases whose EHRs lacked essential information. We reviewed EHRs of 27 cases, using conventional content analysis to identify themes concerning their cancer diagnoses and treatments. RESULTS: Clinicians' notations coalesced around four major themes: (1) patients' health risks raise concerns about diagnostic processes; (2) cancer signs or symptoms can be erroneously attributed to the patient's underlying disabling condition, delaying diagnosis; (3) disability complicates cancer treatment decisions; and (4) problems with equipment accessibility and disability accommodations impede cancer diagnoses. DISCUSSION: Clinicians view patients with pre-existing mobility disability as often clinically complex, presenting challenges for diagnosing and treating their cancer. Nonetheless, these patients may experience substandard care because of disability-related problems. Given the growing population of people with mobility disability, further efforts to improve care quality and timeliness of diagnosis are warranted.

Objective To assess the utility of applying natural language processing (NLP) to electronic health records (EHRs) to identify individuals with chronic mobility disability. Design We used EHRs from the Research Patient Data Repository, which contains EHRs from a large Massachusetts health care delivery system. This analysis was part of a larger study assessing the effects of disability on diagnosis of colorectal cancer. We applied NLP text extraction software to longitudinal EHRs of colorectal cancer patients to identify persons who use a wheelchair (our indicator of mobility disability for this analysis). We manually reviewed the clinical notes identified by NLP using directed content analysis to identify true cases using wheelchairs, duration or chronicity of use, and documentation quality. Setting EHRs from large health care delivery system Participants Patients (N=14,877) 21-75 years old who were newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer between 2005 and 2017. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Confirmation of patients’ chronic wheelchair use in NLP-flagged notes; quality of disability documentation. Results We identified 14,877 patients with colorectal cancer with 303,182 associated clinical notes. NLP screening identified 1482 (0.5%) notes that contained 1+ wheelchair-associated keyword. These notes were associated with 420 patients (2.8% of colorectal cancer population). Of the 1482 notes, 286 (19.3%, representing 105 patients, 0.7% of the total) contained documentation of reason for wheelchair use and duration. Directed content analysis identified 3 themes concerning disability documentation: (1) wheelchair keywords used in specific EHR contexts; (2) reason for wheelchair not clearly stated; and (3) duration of wheelchair use not consistently documented. Conclusions NLP offers an option to screen for patients with chronic mobility disability in much less time than required by manual chart review. Nonetheless, manual chart review must confirm that flagged patients have chronic mobility disability (are not false positives). Notes, however, often have inadequate disability documentation.

Note: This statement is mandatory. Please provide.

Emergency department (ED) crowding poses a severe public health threat, and identifying acceptable means of treating medical conditions in alternative sites of care is imperative. We compared patients' experiences with in-home urgent care via mobile integrated health (MIH) vs urgent care provided in EDs.Survey, completed on paper, online, or by telephone. We surveyed all patients who received MIH care for an urgent health problem (n = 443) and consecutive patients who visited EDs for urgent care (n = 1436).Study participants were members of a managed care plan who were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, 21 years or older, and treated either by MIH or in an ED for nonemergent conditions around Boston, Massachusetts, between February 2017 and June 2018. The survey assessed patients' perceptions of their urgent care experiences.A total of 206 patients treated by community paramedics and 718 patients treated in EDs completed surveys (estimated 66% and 62% response rates, respectively). Patients treated by MIH perceived higher-quality care, more frequently reporting "excellent" (54.7%) or "very good" (32.4%) care compared with ED patients (40.7% and 24.3%, respectively; P .0001), and were significantly more likely to report that decisions made about their care were "definitely right" compared with patients treated in the ED (66.1% vs 55.6%; P = .02).Patients appear satisfied with receiving paramedic-delivered urgent care in their homes rather than EDs, perceiving higher-quality care. This suggests that in-home urgent care via MIH may be acceptable for patients with nonemergent conditions.

BACKGROUND: Women with intellectual disability experience disparities in sexual and reproductive health care services. METHODS: To explore perceptions of caring for persons with disability, including individuals with intellectual disability, we conducted open-ended individual interviews with 20 practicing physicians and three video-based focus group interviews with an additional 22 practicing physicians, which reached data saturation. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. We used conventional content analysis methods to analyse transcripts. RESULT: Physicians indicated that intellectual disability can pose challenges to providing sexual and reproductive health care. Observations coalesced around four themes: (1) communication; (2) routine preventive care; (3) contraception and sterilization; and (4) conception and parenthood. Observations raised concerns about equity of access to reproductive care for women with intellectual disability. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample of physicians, we found attitudes that might compromise reproductive care for women with intellectual disability, suggesting that gaps remain in ensuring reproductive rights of women with intellectual disability.

Importance Despite documented disparities in health care for patients with significant vision impairments and legal mandates that patients with disability receive equitable care, little is known about the extent to which physicians practicing in the US accommodate these patients in outpatient clinical settings. Objective To empirically explore the extent of basic accommodations physicians practicing in the US provide to patients with significant vision limitations in outpatient care. Design, Setting, and Participants In this physician survey study, randomly selected physicians were surveyed throughout the US on their attitudes toward patients with disability. A total of 1400 randomly selected active board-certified physicians representing 7 specialties (family medicine, general internal medicine, rheumatology, neurology, ophthalmology, orthopedic surgery, and obstetrics-gynecology) were surveyed. Data were collected from October 2019 to June 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Reported use of basic accommodations when caring for patients with significant vision limitations (defined here as blind or significant difficulty seeing even with glasses or other corrective lenses). Physicians’ accommodation performance was assessed based on whether they always or usually described the clinic space and always or usually provided printed material in large font. Use of Braille materials was reported too rarely to include in analyses. Results Of the 462 survey participants, 297 of 457 (65.0%) were male. The weighted response rate was 61.0%. Only 48 physicians (9.1%; 95% CI, 6.6-12.3) provided both accommodations (always or usually describing clinic spaces and providing large-font materials), while 267 (60.2%; 95% CI, 55.3-65.0) provided neither of these accommodations. Although 62.8% (95% CI, 57.5-67.8; n = 245) of nonophthalmologists did not provide either accommodation, 29.3% (95% CI, 20.1-40.7; n = 22) of ophthalmologists also did not do so; only 24.0% (95% CI, 15.6-35.0; n = 18) of ophthalmologists provided both accommodations compared with 8.4% (95% CI, 5.4-12.7) of other physicians. Conclusions and Relevance This survey study suggests that less than one-tenth of physicians practicing in the US who care for patients with significant vision limitations usually or always describe clinic spaces or provide large-font materials, and less than one-third of ophthalmologists do so. Actions to address this seem warranted.

Approximately 16.2 million Americans ages 18 and older (5.7%) report being deaf or having serious difficulty hearing. Hearing loss impedes effective communication during clinical encounters putting patients' safety at risk. A large fraction of Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuits addresses whether providers offered auxiliary aids and services required to ensure effective communication.Examine use of different hearing accommodations for deaf or hard of hearing patients by U.S. physicians.We surveyed randomly selected physicians nationwide representing 7 specialties about their reported use of 8 types of accommodations when communicating with adult outpatients who are deaf or have significant difficulty hearing, even with hearing aids (overall weighted response rate = 61.0%). We performed a descriptive analysis of responses, using survey sampling weights.Among the 526 physicians in this analysis, most were male, white, urban, and practiced in community-based practices. Overall, 81.5% (SE = 1.9) reported that patients with significant hearing limitations get worse quality health care than others. Among participants, 49.8% (2.4) reported never using an in-person sign language interpreter hired by the practice, and 63.2% (2.4) never use video remote interpreting. In contrast, 30.7% (2.1) always and 29.8% (2.2) usually speak louder and slower to patients with significant hearing limitations. None of the 8 accommodations were always or usually used by 8.9% (1.3) of participants.More than 32 years after the Americans with Disabilities Act, most physicians do not offer accommodations sufficient to ensure effective communication with adult outpatients with significant hearing limitations.

Objective To explore attitudes and practices of physicians relating to accessible medical diagnostic equipment in serving patients with mobility disability. Design Open-ended individual telephone interviews, which reached data saturation. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim for qualitative conventional content analysis. Setting Massachusetts, the United States, October 2017-January 2018. Participants Practicing physicians from 5 clinical specialties (N=20). Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Common themes concerning physical accessibility. Results Mean ± SD time in practice was 27.5±12.5 years; 14 practices had height-adjustable examination tables; and 7 had wheelchair-accessible weight scales. The analysis identified 6 broad themes: height-adjustable examination tables have advantages; height-adjustable examination tables have drawbacks; transferring patients onto examination tables is challenging; rationale for examining patients in their wheelchairs; perceptions of wheelchair-accessible weight scales; and barriers and facilitators to improving physical accessibility. Major barriers identified by participants included costs of equipment, limited space, and inadequate payment for extra time required to care for persons with disability. Even physicians with accessible examination tables sometimes examined patients seated in their wheelchairs. Conclusions Even if physicians have accessible equipment, they do not always use it in examining patients with disability. Future efforts will need to consider ways to eliminate these access barriers in clinical practice. Given small sample size, results are not generalizable to physicians nationwide and globally.

Background Many factors contribute to the well-recognized health care disparities experienced by persons with disability, including failure of physicians to understand the lives of individuals with disability. Disability cultural competence considers physicians’ ability to meet the social, cultural, and linguistic needs of this population. Objectives To assess physicians’ understanding of disability cultural competence and attitudes towards patients with disability. Methods Qualitative analyses of open-ended individual interviews averaging 41 min with 20 Massachusetts physicians from 5 different subspecialties, in practice for 8–51 years. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim for conventional content analysis. Results Most participants defined disability using medically-focused concepts rather than concepts that recognize how social factors contribute to disability. All participants used disability culturally-competent language, such as “person-first language,” at some points throughout their interviews. However, most participants also employed language that is now considered unacceptable or archaic, such as variations on the word “handicap,” “wheelchair-bound,” describing persons with disability as “suffering,” and calling persons by their health condition (e.g., “COPDer”). Participants mentioned persons with mental illness and intellectual disability as particularly challenging, especially around communication and performing even routine tests or examinations. Recommendations for improving care included better listening to patients with disability and seeking their views about their care. Conclusions In this exploratory study, most participants used language that is considered disability culturally competent at times but also employed many terms and concepts that are considered outdated and may be troubling to some persons with disability.

Americans generally want to remain in their homes even if they develop chronic health problems or disabilities that qualify them for nursing home care. While family members or friends provide the preponderance of home-based support, millions of Americans use paid personal assistance services (PAS). Inexorable demographic trends are increasing the numbers of people who need paid home-based PAS, with this need rapidly outstripping the capacity of the paid PAS workforce. While many factors contribute to this widening discrepancy, its roots reach back more than eighty years to asynchrony among various policies affecting home-based supports for people with functional impairments and policies affecting home-based PAS workers. Finding solutions to the growing gap between demand for the services and the PAS workforce requires policies that cut across societal sectors and align incentives for consumers, workers, and other key stakeholders.

Background Mobility limitations are the most common disability type among the 61 million Americans with disability. Studies of patients with mobility limitations suggest that inaccessible medical diagnostic equipment poses significant barriers to care. Methods The study team surveyed randomly selected US physicians nationwide representing seven specialties about their reported use of accessible weight scales and exam tables/chairs when caring for patients with mobility limitations. A descriptive analysis of responses was performed, and multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between accessible equipment and participants’ characteristics. Results The 714 participants (survey response rate = 61.0%) were primarily male, White, and urban, and had practiced for 20 or more years. Among those reporting routinely recording patients’ weights (n = 399), only 22.6% (standard error [SE] = 2.2) reported always or usually using accessible weight scales for patients with significant mobility limitations. To determine weights of patients with mobility limitations, 8.1% always, 24.3% usually, and 40.0% sometimes asked patients. Physicians practicing ≥ 20 years were much less likely than other physicians to use accessible weight scales: odds ratio (OR) = 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.26–0.99). Among participants seeing patients with significant mobility limitations (n = 584), only 40.3% (SE = 2.2) always or usually used accessible exam tables or chairs. Specialists were much more likely than primary care physicians to use accessible exam tables/chairs: OR = 1.96 (95% CI = 1.29–2.99). Conclusion More than 30 years after enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, most physicians surveyed do not use accessible equipment for routine care of patients with chronic significant mobility limitations.

The 12 narratives highlight persisting structural failures of health care delivery systems, which marginalize and disempower patients. These systemic failures coalesce around three major, sometimes overlapping forces. First, financial incentives drive virtually every aspect of health care. Given high costs of doing business, private and public health care providers alike constantly maneuver to minimize financial risks. Second, upon hospital discharge, many patients fall through the cracks, as they transition from the silo of inpatient facilities into another and separate silo, community-based long-term services and supports. Patients leaving inpatient facilities can find themselves in environments ill-suited to support their needs. Third, structural forces affect communication between patients and their health care providers. In particular, major payors, notably Medicare, punish hospitals financially when patients are readmitted shortly after discharge, leading hospitals to prioritize pre-discharge communication. However, discharge planning is often inadequate, leaving patients without essential information to effectively manage their health.

More than sixty-one million Americans have disabilities, and increasing evidence documents that they experience health care disparities. Although many factors likely contribute to these disparities, one little-studied but potential cause involves physicians' perceptions of people with disability. In our survey of 714 practicing US physicians nationwide, 82.4 percent reported that people with significant disability have worse quality of life than nondisabled people. Only 40.7 percent of physicians were very confident about their ability to provide the same quality of care to patients with disability, just 56.5 percent strongly agreed that they welcomed patients with disability into their practices, and 18.1 percent strongly agreed that the health care system often treats these patients unfairly. More than thirty years after the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was enacted, these findings about physicians' perceptions of this population raise questions about ensuring equitable care to people with disability. Potentially biased views among physicians could contribute to persistent health care disparities affecting people with disability.

Objective We explored the process of cancer care for patients with preexisting mobility disability, focusing on treatment decisions and experiences. Design We recruited 20 participants with preexisting mobility disability, requiring use of an assistive device or assistance with activities of daily living, subsequently diagnosed with cancer (excluding skin cancers). We conducted open-ended individual interviews, which reached data saturation and were transcribed verbatim for conventional content analysis. Results Concerns coalesced around 4 themes: disability-related healthcare experiences affect cancer treatment decisions; concerns about cancer treatment worsening functional impairments; access barriers; and limited provider awareness and biases about treating people with disability. Residual fear from previous medical interventions and concerns about exacerbating functional impairments influenced cancer treatment preferences. Participants also raised concerns that their underlying disability may be used to justify less aggressive treatment. Nevertheless, cancer treatment did exacerbate mobility difficulties for some participants. Inaccessible hospital rooms, lack of accessible medical equipment, and attitudinal barriers complicated treatments. Conclusions People with preexisting mobility disability experience barriers to cancer treatment, compromising quality of care and potentially outcomes. Further training and proactive planning for accommodating disability during cancer treatment and rehabilitation are warranted. To claim cme credits Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME. Cme objectives Upon completion of the article, the reader should be able to: (1) Recognize inadequate accommodations that compromise the diagnosis and treatment of a new cancer in patients with preexisting disability; (2) Recommend involving rehabilitation specialists in the process of care and clinical decision making from the time of cancer diagnosis for patients with preexisting disability newly diagnosed with malignancy; and (3) In the setting of accessibility barriers, facilitate efforts to accommodate patients with preexisting disability to improve quality of care in diagnosing and treating cancer. Level Advanced. Accreditation The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Introduction Studies suggest that women with disability experience disparities in routine, high-value screening services, including mammograms and Papanicolaou (Pap) tests. However, few studies have explored whether women with disability have higher risks than other women of developing breast or cervical cancers. Methods The authors analyzed 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2018 National Health Interview Surveys, which involved civilian, noninstitutionalized US residents, and included supplemental surveys on cancer screening. The authors used self-reported functional status limitations to identify women without disability and women with movement difficulties (MDs) or complex activity limitations (CAL) predating breast or cervical cancer diagnoses. Multivariable models evaluated associations of disability status to cancer diagnosis, adjusting for other variables. Analyses used sampling weights, producing national estimates. Results The sample included 66,641 women; 24.4% reported MD and 14.5% reported CAL. Compared with women without disability, women with pre-existing MD or CAL had significantly higher rates of breast cancer (2.2% vs. 3.5% and 3.6%, respectively) and cervical cancer (0.6% vs. 0.8% and 1.0%, respectively). Women with disability had significantly lower recent mammography and Pap test rates than women without disability. After adjusting for all covariates, the values for odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of pre-existing CAL for cancer diagnoses were 1.21 (1.01-1.46; P=0.04) for breast cancer and 1.43 (1.04-1.99; P=0.03) for cervical cancer. Conclusions Pre-existing disability is associated with a higher likelihood of breast and cervical cancer diagnoses, raising the urgency of eliminating disability disparities in mammography and Pap testing. Further research will need to explore the causes of these higher cancer rates.

Objective Mobility disability affects approximately 13.7% of the United States population, representing the most common disability type. People with mobility disability experience disparities in cancer screening and higher prevalence of some cancers compared to the general population. We sought to explore the attitudes of people with pre-existing mobility disability about their cancer diagnosis. Methods We conducted open-ended individual interviews with 20 participants who had pre-existing mobility disability requiring use of an assistive device or assistance with performance of activities of daily living (ADLs), subsequently diagnosed with cancer (excluding skin cancers). Interviews reached data saturation and were transcribed verbatim for conventional content analysis. Results Concerns coalesced around three major themes: sense of control over health conditions, seeking support, and recommendations for other people with disability seeking cancer care. Some participants described feeling a loss of control over their cancer diagnosis that they did not have regarding disability, while others suggested that disability presented greater challenges than their cancer diagnosis. Participants described seeking various forms of support, including emotional support (e.g., from friends and family), informational support (e.g., recommendations for seeking care), instrumental support (e.g., ADLs), and appraisal (e.g., self-reflection of personal qualities for fighting cancer). They provided recommendations, highlighting importance of self-advocacy and being attuned to changes in health status. Conclusions We found that people with pre-existing mobility disability and cancer express complex attitudes towards their cancer diagnosis. Findings may inform efforts to improve quality of relevant supports to meet the psychosocial needs of this population.

Efforts to include people with disability as students and practitioners in the health professions have gained momentum in recent years. However, prevailing technical standards at U.S. medical schools have biases that can prevent or impede their admission, promotion, and graduation. These standards derive from an approach first promulgated in 1979 and have since remained largely unaltered. Current technical standards at most medical schools are now at odds with changes occurring since the 1990 enactment of broad civil rights protections for people with disability and current aspirations for diversity, equity, and inclusion in the medical profession. It is time to replace the technical standards construct with an approach more consistent with current medical practices, and with societal imperatives of equity and social justice. Such an approach should assess candidates' demonstrable skills and merits, rather than relying on a preconceived construct identifying the presence or absence of defined levels of ability. The maturation of competency-based approaches to curricular design and assessment provides an opportunity to reconceptualize the abilities required to practice medicine, foster the appropriate inclusion of physicians with disability, and better align medical education and training with broader societal needs and goals.

BACKGROUND: Mobility disability is the most common disability among adult Americans, estimated at 13.7% of the US population. Cancer prevalence is higher among people with mobility disability compared with the general population, yet people with disability experience disparities in cancer screening and treatment. OBJECTIVE: We explored experiences of patients with mobility disability with the process of cancer diagnosis. DESIGN: Open-ended individual interviews, which reached data saturation. Interviews were transcribed verbatim for conventional content analysis. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 20 participants with pre-existing mobility disability that required the use of an assistive device or assistance with performance of activities of daily living and who were subsequently diagnosed with cancer (excluding melanoma). KEY RESULTS: Concerns coalesced around five broad categories: inaccessibility of medical diagnostic equipment affecting the process of cancer diagnosis, attitudes of clinical staff about accommodating disability, dismissal of cancer signs/symptoms as emotional responses to chronic health conditions, misattributing cancer signs/symptoms to underlying disability, and attitudes about pursuing legal action for substandard care. Participants provided examples of how erroneous assumptions and potentially biased attitudes among clinicians interfered with the process of their cancer diagnosis, sometimes contributing to an insufficient workup and diagnostic delays. CONCLUSIONS: Physical and attitudinal barriers affect the process of cancer diagnosis in people with mobility disability. Though people with mobility disability may be clinically complex, clinicians should be aware of the risks of diagnostic overshadowing (i.e., the misattribution of cancer signs/symptoms to underlying disability) and other erroneous assumptions that may affect timeliness of cancer diagnosis and quality of care. Further efforts, including educating clinicians about challenges in caring for persons with disability, should be considered to improve the process of cancer diagnosis for this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-020-06327-7.

The Acute Community Care Program (ACCP) initiative sends specially trained paramedics to evaluate and treat patients with urgent care problems in their residences during evening hours. ACCP safety depends on making appropriate triage decisions from patients’ reports during phone calls about whether paramedics could care for patients’ urgent needs or whether they require emergency department (ED) services. Furthermore, after ACCP paramedics are on scene, patients may nonetheless need ED care if their urgent health problems are not adequately treated by the paramedic’s interventions. To train clinical staff participating in all aspects of ACCP, including these triage decisions, ACCP clinical leaders developed brief vignettes: 27 represented initial ACCP triage decisions and 10 the subsequent decision to send patients to EDs. This report describes findings from an online survey completed by 24 clinical staff involved with ACCP triage. Clinical vignettes could be useful for staff training and quality control in such paramedic initiatives.

Background Few U.S. studies have explored how children experience a parent's mobility disability and its effects on their daily lives. Objective We aimed to engage youth ages 13–17 who had at least one parent with mobility disability in describing their perceptions of their parent's disability and its consequences for their daily and family life. Methods Participants videoed and photographed their experiences following general guidelines from the researchers about topics of interest. Participants made their own choices about what they submitted. We used conventional content analysis to identify broad themes. Results The mean (standard deviation) age of the 10 participants was 15.2 (1.9) years; 5 were male; 9 participants were white. All 5 girls submitted multiple self-focused (selfie) videos made in their bedrooms; the 5 boys submitted more diverse data files. Several broad themes or topics emerged including: the effects of timing and trajectory of the parent's disability; perceptions of early maturity and responsibility; fears and frustrations relating to the parent's disability; support and emerging resilience; and sense of social justice. Participants generally felt their parents' disability made them become – compared to their peers – more mature, responsible, capable of performing household tasks, and aware of disability civil rights. Conclusions Participants raised many issues that health care providers should be aware of when youth have parents with mobility disability. A parent's mobility disability may be associated with resilience but also may pose challenges for youth. More research is needed to understand better adolescents' experiences and how clinicians might best assist these youth.

Background: The benefits of breastfeeding are well established, and breastfeeding is now widely practiced in the United States. Although increasing numbers of women with physical disabilities are having children, little information is available about breastfeeding practices among these women. Nonetheless, the children of women with physical disabilities should benefit from breastfeeding just as children of nondisabled mothers do. Research aim: This study aimed to explore the facilitators and barriers to breastfeeding among women with physical disabilities. Methods: This study involved semistructured telephone interviews with a convenience sample of women ( N = 25) with diverse physical disabilities from across the United States. All participants had given birth within the past 10 years. Interviews were audio-recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed using content analysis. Results: Analyses found four broad themes indicating facilitators to breastfeeding: (a) adaptations and equipment, (b) use of breast pump, (c) physical assistance from others, and (d) peer support. We also found five broad themes suggesting barriers to breastfeeding: (a) lack of supports, (b) disability-related health considerations, (c) limited information, (d) difficulties with milk production, and (e) difficulties latching. Conclusion: The need for greater supports for women with physical disabilities who desire to breastfeed as well as information for women and their clinicians about facilitating breastfeeding.

Women with physical disabilities increasingly aspire to become pregnant and bear children. Limited information about the potential interaction of their disabling conditions with pregnancy and childbirth exists to guide these women and their clinicians.The interview guide was created with questions on topics such as pregnancy complications and secondary conditions, the impact of prior surgeries, experiences with pain relief during labor, and the impact on women's independence and participation in life activities. Interviews were conducted by telephone with 25 women with physical disabilities. They were subsequently transcribed verbatim and analyzed by using Atlas TI.Women generally reported a relatively modest impact of disabling conditions on their pregnancies. Most women were satisfied with the mode of delivery, but they experienced challenges during the labor and delivery process. The women found that careful advanced planning was helpful in managing the impact of their disabling conditions. The involvement of clinicians with disability-related expertise was, in some cases, another factor that contributed to a positive outcome.The importance of advanced planning and the utility of involving clinicians with disability-related expertise suggest that the use of integrated, interdisciplinary team approaches could promote quality care by facilitating improved planning and management. Additional clinical research is needed to provide women and their clinicians with more information on potential complications and options for labor and delivery.

Background Childbirth is widely acknowledged as one of the most painful experiences most women will undergo in their lifetimes. Alleviating labor and delivery pain for women with physical disabilities can involve an additional level of complexity beyond that experienced by most women, but little research has explored their experiences. Objective The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of women with physical disabilities with respect to pain relief during labor and delivery with the goal of informing their care. Methods Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with twenty-five women with physical disabilities from across the United States. Results Women expressed specific preferences for the method of pain relief. Some confronted systemic barriers in exploring their options for pain relief, while others were given a choice. At times, anesthesiologists lacked knowledge and experience in caring for women with disabilities. Conversely, some women described how the administration of anesthesia was meticulously planned and attributed their positive labor and delivery experiences to this careful planning. Conclusions Advanced, individualized planning and evaluation of their options for pain relief was most satisfying to women and enabled them to make an informed choice. This approach is consistent with the recommendations of clinicians who have successfully provided pain relief during labor to women with complex physical disabilities. Clinicians who have successfully delivered babies of women with these and similar disabilities emphasize the importance of a team approach where the anesthesiologist and other specialists are involved early on in a woman's care.

Background Although many women with physical disabilities report poor quality reproductive health care, little research has addressed labor, delivery, and anesthesia experiences of these women. This study was conducted to explore these experiences in women with significant mobility disabilities. Methods A qualitative descriptive study was conducted with 22 women from the United States who had delivered newborns within the prior 10 years. All had significant mobility disabilities. Two-hour, in-depth telephone interviews were conducted using a semistructured, open-ended interview protocol, which addressed many topics, including labor, delivery, and anesthesia experiences. We recruited most participants through social networks, interviewing women from 17 states. Conventional content analysis, facilitated by NVivo software, was used to identify major themes. Results The mean age of women was 34.8 ± 5.3 years. Most women were white, college educated, and used wheeled mobility aids. Four key themes emerged from participants’ narratives of laboring and giving birth with a disability. These included women's preferences for type of delivery, clinicians and some women expected no labor pain, fears prompting active advocacy, and positive experiences. As participants discussed their experiences with anesthesia, four additional themes were identified: importance of consultation with the anesthesia team, decisions about epidural/spinal vs general anesthesia, failed epidural with repeated efforts, and fear of injury related to anesthesia. Conclusions The responses of women in this study suggest that there is need to make intrapartum care better for women with physical disabilities and to improve their experiences with labor, birth, and obstetric anesthesia care.

Background When assessing results of health care delivery system reforms targeting persons with disability, quality metrics must reflect the experiences and perspectives of this population. Objective For persons with disability and researchers to develop collaboratively a survey that addresses critical quality questions about a new Massachusetts health care program for persons with disability dually-eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Methods Persons with significant physical disability or serious mental health diagnoses participated fully in all research activities, including co-directing the study, co-moderating focus groups, performing qualitative analyses, specifying survey topics, cognitive interviewing, and refining survey language. Several sources informed survey development, including key informant interviews, focus groups, and cognitive testing. Results We interviewed 18 key informants from key stakeholder groups, including disability advocates, health care providers, and governmental agencies. We conducted 12 total English- and Spanish-language focus groups involving 87 participants (38 with physical disability, 49 with mental health diagnoses). Although some details differed, focus group findings were similar across the two disability groups. Analyses by collaborators with disability identified 29 questions for persons with physical disability and 38 for persons with mental health diagnoses. After cognitive testing, the final survey includes questions on topics ranging from independent living principles to health care delivery system concerns. Conclusions The Persons with Disabilities Quality Survey (PDQ-S) captures specific quality concerns of Massachusetts residents with physical or mental health disability about an integrated health plan. PDQ-S requires further testing elsewhere to determine its value for quality assessment more generally and to other populations with disability.

Disability is relevant to almost all people at some point across their lifespan. Nonetheless, persons with disability are often marginalized and stigmatized in the USA, including in health care. Disparities in health and health care are increasingly documented, especially for certain subpopulations of persons with disability. Disabilities are heterogeneous; therefore, to perform various life activities, including receiving health care, individuals with disability require accommodations specific to their particular needs. Especially pertinent in educational settings, learning disabilities encompass a diverse range of experiences and accommodation requirements. Historically, health care professionals have been afraid to reveal disability for fear of being forced to leave practice or undergo extensive evaluation. Therefore, little is known about this largely invisible group of clinicians. Having more persons with disability in health care professions could potentially decrease disability-related health care disparities. However, welcoming persons with disability into these professional roles faces considerable challenges.

Accessibility of Medical Diagnostic Equipment In December, the U.S. Department of Justice halted efforts on a national level to make medical diagnostic equipment accessible to people with disabilit...

Background: Approximately 61 million Americans have a disability. Little research has explored whether disability is associated with subsequent diagnosis of cancer, the second-leading cause of death in the United States. The objective of this study was to explore associations between cancer and disability, focusing on 4 cancers that may present with nonspecific symptoms that could be conflated with aspects of disability, thus delaying cancer diagnoses. An analysis of a nationally representative survey using sampling weights to produce national estimates was performed. Methods: Civilian, noninstitutionalized US residents responding to the 2010–2017 National Health Interview Surveys totaling 259,392 Sample Adult Core survey respondents were included. We used self-reported functional status limitations to identify persons with movement difficulties (MD), complex activity limitations (CAL), and no disability. Multivariable regressions predicting cancer diagnosis included sociodemographic characteristics, tobacco use, body mass index, access to care indicators, and disability status. Results: Persons with preexisting disability had significantly higher rates of cancer (ranging from 0.40 [SE, 0.05] for ovarian to 3.38 [0.14] for prostate) than did those without disability (0.20 [0.02] and 1.26 [0.04] for the same cancers; all PConclusions: Our population-based analyses suggest that persons with disability may constitute a high-risk population, with higher cancer incidence. Optimizing appropriate screening and fully investigating new signs and symptoms are therefore critical for patients with disability.