No abstract

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.

Background: Interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP) offers great potential to improve healthcare. Increases in IPCP will require educating learners in authentic IPCP settings and will generate opportunities and challenges. Methods: In January 2015, we implemented an IPCP model called Collaborative Care (CC) for hospitalized adult medical patients. We explored learner perspectives regarding their educational experiences. We deductively coded transcripts from semi-structured interviews with medical learners. Data related to educational experiences were thematically analyzed. Results: Twenty-four of 28 (85.7%) medical learners rotating on CC from January to May 2015 completed interviews. Subsequent inductive analysis of these interviews identified four themes: Loss of Educational Opportunities during Rounds, Feelings of Uncertainty during New Situations, Strategies for Adaptation, and Improved Communication with Patients and the Team. Conclusions: Increased implementation of IPCP will lead to a greater number of learners being exposed to authentic IPCP settings and will generate opportunities and challenges. Though learners perceived improved communication skills in an IPCP model, they also described loss of profession-specific learning opportunities and feelings of uncertainty. These findings corroborate the need for novel teaching methods aligned with IPCP clinical learning environments and educational assessment strategies that reflect attainment of both profession-specific and interprofessional competencies.

Absence of a Knowledgeable and Identifiable Point PersonThe lack of a qualified expert in disability inclusion as part of the interactive process to determine

DHoH physicians and trainees seemed satisfied with frequent, multimodal accommodations from employers and educators. These results may assist organizations in planning accommodation provisions. Because DHoH physicians and trainees seem interested in primary care and serving DHoH patients, recruiting and training DHoH physicians has implications for the care of this underserved population.

This survey study uses data from the Association of American Medical Colleges National Sample Survey of Physicians to assess the prevalence and characteristics of US physicians with disabilities among a survey of 6000 practicing physicians.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

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