Search

People with disabilities represent a large and often under-recognized minority population in the United States. Historically, negative healthcare provider perceptions and limited critical social determinants of health (including community living and education) have resulted in inequitable healthcare and access for this vulnerable group. Within the last 40 years, there have been some advances in legislation to improve access and support for those with disabilities. Since then, advances in accommodations have enabled better access to critical health-related resources and care. Continued forward progress and increased awareness are imperative to improve access, reduce disparities in healthcare, and combat discrimination.

Individuals with disabilities comprise a substantial portion of the U.S. population but make up only a small subset of medical students and health care providers. Both the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education have called for increased diversity in the physician workforce, to more closely represent the U.S. patient population and provide culturally effective care. Yet the barriers to disclosure and inclusion for individuals with disabilities in health care are significant, including attitudinal barriers such as stigma and bias, organizational barriers in policies and procedures, and environmental barriers such as resources and physical space. Lack of experience providing accommodations and a lack of knowledge of both what is legally required and what is possible also prevent programs from creating access. Realizing inclusion for individuals with disabilities in a diverse workforce requires emergency medicine programs to be proactive and deliberate in their approach to recruiting, accommodating, and retaining students, residents, and faculty with disabilities. Such efforts are likely to provide benefits that extend beyond those who receive the accommodations.

Objectives Individuals with disabilities experience significant health care disparities due to a multitude of barriers to effective care, which include a lack of adequate physician training on this topic and negative attitudes of physicians. This results in disparities through inadequate physical examination and diagnostic testing, withholding or inferior treatment, and neglecting preventative care. While much has been published about disability education in undergraduate medical education, little is known about the current state of disability education in emergency medicine (EM) residency programs. Methods In 2019, a total of 237 EM residency program directors (PDs) in the United States were surveyed about the actual and desired number of hours of disability health instruction, perceived barriers to disability health education, prevalence of residents and faculty with disabilities, and confidence in providing accommodations to residents with disabilities. Results A total of 104 surveys were completed (104/237, 43.9% response rate); 43% of respondents included disability-specific content in their residency curricula for an average of 1.5 total hours annually, in contrast to average desired hours of 4.16 hours. Reported barriers to disability health education included lack of time and lack of faculty expertise. A minority of residency programs have faculty members (13.5%) or residents (26%) with disabilities. The prevalence of EM residents with disabilities was 4.02%. Programs with residents with disabilities reported more hours devoted to disability curricula (5 hours vs 1.54 hours, p = 0.017) and increased confidence in providing workplace accommodations for certain disabilities including mobility disability (p = 0.002), chronic health conditions (p = 0.022), and psychological disabilities (p = 0.018). Conclusions A minority of EM PDs in our study included disability health content in their residency curricula. The presence of faculty and residents with disabilities is associated with positive effects on training programs, including a greater number of hours devoted to disability health education and greater confidence in accommodating learners with disabilities. To reduce health care disparities for patients with disabilities, we recommend that a dedicated disability health curriculum be integrated into all aspects of the EM residency curriculum, including lectures, journal clubs, and simulations and include direct interaction with individuals with disabilities. We further recommend that disability be recognized as an aspect of diversity when hiring faculty and recruiting residents to EM programs, to address this training gap and to promote a diverse and inclusive learning environment.

People with disabilities constitute a marginalized population who experience significant health care disparities resulting from structural, socioeconomic, and attitudinal barriers to accessing health care. It has been reported that education on the care of marginalized groups helps to improve awareness, patient-provider rapport, and patient satisfaction. Yet, emergency medicine (EM) residency education on care for people with disabilities may be lacking. The goal of this paper is to review the current state of health care for patients with disabilities, review the current state of undergraduate and graduate medical education on the care of patients with disabilities, and provide suggestions for an improved EM residency curriculum that includes education on the care for patients with disabilities.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. There is strong evidence that gender and sex play an important role across the spectrum of TBI, from pathophysiology to clinical care. In May 2014, Academic Emergency Medicine held a consensus conference "Gender-Specific Research in Emergency Care: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes." A TBI working group was formed to explore what was known about the influence of sex and gender on TBI and to identify gaps for future research. The findings resulted in four major recommendations to guide the TBI research agenda.

We propose expansion of the standard "time-out" into a comprehensive "preparatory pause" encompassing five well-documented perioperative risk avoidance strategies: beta-adrenergic blockade, DVT prophylaxis, preoperative antibiotics, normothermia, and euglycemia. Although all members of the surgical team acknowledge the clear benefit of these five prophylactic strategies, published national compliance even in the target patient population is a disappointingly consistent 50%. We have developed and field-tested a "preparatory pause" form that we appended to our "surgical time-out." By politely challenging our surgical team as to the inclusion of these five risk avoidance strategies in 167 consecutive patients, we increased our compliance to more than 90% for each preventive measure. We have not attempted to quantify the physical and psychological benefit of complication avoidance due to the enhanced activation of these five prophylactic strategies. Using published surgical complication prevalence data, with and without these accepted risk avoidance measures, we estimate the number of complications per 100 patients avoided. Utilizing the Medicare payment schedule for each complication, we approximate the purely financial benefit of the "preparatory pause" to be $88,640 per 100 patients, or almost $900 per patient. The now standard surgical "time-out" is designed to avoid the gratifyingly uncommon problem of "wrong patient,""wrong procedure," and "wrong site." Many surgeons negotiate an entire career without stumbling over these disastrous problems. We propose expansion of the "time-out" to include five well-documented perioperative risk avoidance strategies that many of us overlook all too often.

We compared serious and non-serious review of systems (ROS) complaints in the Emergency Department (ED). There were 173 adults discharged from an urban county ED who were administered a 56-item ROS identical to the ED chart ROS. Blinded review of ED charts determined which ROS complaints were documented by clinicians and whether ROS complaints were addressed by ED diagnostic testing or physical examination (PE). Mean differences in proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between serious and non-serious ROS complaints were: 1) For whether patients expected ROS complaints addressed in the ED, 15.7% (95% CI 6.5–24.2); 2) For ROS complaints concomitantly noted on ED charts by providers, 9.0% (95% CI 1.7–17.6); and 3) For whether provider-noted ROS complaints were addressed by testing or PE, 21.2% (95% CI 4.2–38.3). Discharged ED patients expect more of their serious ROS complaints to be addressed. More serious ROS complaints are noted and addressed by ED providers, but most ROS complaints noted by providers are not addressed.