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

Abstract

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

The accessibility of virtual residency interviews: the good, the bad, the solutions

“…multiple mini interview (MMI), panel, asynchronous), thus prohibiting candidates from appropriately anticipating their potential accommodation needs. [7][8][9][10] In-person interviews previously allowed students to explore the physical accessibility of staff areas of the hospital. With the introduction of virtual interviews, candidates must rely instead on program representatives' knowledge of the accessibility of these spaces which, in our experience, is often limited.…”