Dataset Information

Knowledge Of Practicing Physicians About Their Legal Obligations When Caring For Patients With Disability.

ABSTRACT: Disability civil rights laws require equitable treatment of the approximately sixty-one million Americans with disability. However, federal reports and numerous research studies indicate that this diverse and growing population often experiences health care disparities. To examine one possible contributing factor, we interviewed practicing physicians to explore their knowledge of their obligations to accommodate patients with disability under federal civil rights law. Interviewees reported having had little formal training about, and demonstrated superficial or incorrect understanding of, their obligations in three potentially problematic areas: deciding which accommodations their practices should implement, refusing patients with disability, and holding patients accountable for costs of accommodations. The fact that practicing physicians might not fully understand their legal responsibilities when caring for people with disability may contribute to persisting inequity in their care, and it suggests that further education in the Americans with Disabilities Act and other disability civil rights laws may be warranted.

SUBMITTER: Agaronnik ND

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7083130 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Knowledge Of Practicing Physicians About Their Legal Obligations When Caring For Patients With Disability.

Agaronnik Nicole D ND Pendo Elizabeth E Campbell Eric G EG Ressalam Julie J Iezzoni Lisa I LI

Health affairs (Project Hope) 20190401 4

Disability civil rights laws require equitable treatment of the approximately sixty-one million Americans with disability. However, federal reports and numerous research studies indicate that this diverse and growing population often experiences health care disparities. To examine one possible contributing factor, we interviewed practicing physicians to explore their knowledge of their obligations to accommodate patients with disability under federal civil rights law. Interviewees reported havin ...[more]

PMID: 30933590

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient-centered care for people with disability requires effective communication and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). OBJECTIVE:To understand physicians' perspectives on communication experiences with people with disability. DESIGN:Twenty semi-structured individual interviews. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim for analysis. SETTING:Massachusetts, October 2017-January 2018. PARTICIPANTS:Twenty physicians ranging from 8 to 51 years in practice in primary care or 4 other specialties. MEASUREMENTS:Commonly expressed themes around communication with people with disability. RESULTS:Concerns coalesced around 4 broad categories: communication experiences with people who are deaf or hard of hearing, communication with people who are blind or have vision impairment, communication with people who have intellectual disability, and recommendations for improving communication. Although participants in this study reported various efforts to communicate effectively with patients with hearing or vision loss or intellectual disability, many gaps appear to remain, as well as instances where physicians' preferences run counter to patients' wishes and the ADA. Examples include physicians' preferences for remote, online sign language interpreters despite patients desiring in-person interpreters and suggesting that patients arrange for their own interpreters. Few educational materials are available in braille, and electronic medical records may not allow documents to be printed in large font for persons with low vision. Communicating with patients with intellectual disability raised particular concerns, with participants often preferring to interact with caregivers and minimal efforts to involve patients. CONCLUSIONS:Effective communication is necessary for ensuring the quality of health care for people with disability, and it is legally required under the ADA. Our results suggest that important gaps may remain in ensuring effective communication, and some practicing physicians could benefit from formal training in effective methods for communicating with patients with disability.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple countries have taken measures, such as isolation and quarantine, to prevent person-to-person spread of disease. These actions forced many physicians to adopt new techniques, such as telemedicine, to continue patient care, which has proven to be useful in continued care for those with non-COVID-19 pathologies. Various factors, such as security, confidentiality, cost-effectiveness, comfort, and the risk of malpractice, influence the perception of telemedicine among medical practitioners. The aim of this study was to adapt an existing instrument and validate it into a new Spanish version. The instrument is about the perceptions and knowledge of telemedicine in healthcare professionals.MethodsThe original questionnaire surveyed 6 domains with 40 questions, and each question was measured with a five-point Likert scale ranging from very high [5] to very low [1]. The survey was translated to Spanish using machine translation. The translation was reviewed independently, and then, a consensus was achieved regarding minor changes in the syntax of the survey to facilitate understanding. After expert feedback and questionnaire review, the research team members proposed reducing the instrument to 13 items in 4 domains due to the similarity of some questions. The sample was divided into 2randomly selected groups. Eligibility criteria included physicians providing private or public services with active medical/clinical practice.ResultsIn total, 382 surveys were collected and separated into two random samples, S1 and S2 (198 and 184, respectively). In exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the 13 items were grouped into four theoretical domains, and item 7 presented cross loading between factors and was removed. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to assess the scale reliability and interscale associations; three models were tested. Global Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency was 0.76 for the EFA. The goodness of fit measures root mean square error of approximation and comparative fit index were 0.009 and 0.999, respectively, for the best model.ConclusionsThe translated instrument was clear, with adequate internal consistency, readability, and appropriate for application in the physician setting. This validated questionnaire made it possible to evaluate physicians' knowledge of telemedicine to increase its use, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious surveys on the relationship between physicians and pharmaceutical representatives (PRs) have been of limited quality. The purpose of our survey of practicing physicians in Japan was to assess the extent of their involvement in pharmaceutical promotional activities, physician characteristics that predict such involvement, attitudes toward relationships with PRs, correlations between the extent of involvement and attitudes, and differences in the extent of involvement according to self-reported prescribing behaviors.Methods and findingsFrom January to March 2008, we conducted a national survey of 2621 practicing physicians in seven specialties: internal medicine, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, psychiatry, and ophthalmology. The response rate was 54%. Most physicians met with PRs (98%), received drug samples (85%) and stationery (96%), and participated in industry-sponsored continuing medical education (CME) events at the workplace (80%) and outside the workplace (93%). Half accepted meals outside the workplace (49%) and financial subsidies to attend CME events (49%). Rules at the workplace banning both meetings with PRs and gifts predicted less involvement of physicians in promotional activities. Physicians valued information from PRs. They believed that they were unlikely to be influenced by promotional activities, but that their colleagues were more susceptible to such influence than themselves. They were divided about the appropriateness of low-value gifts. The extent of physician involvement in promotional activities was positively correlated with the attitudes that PRs are a valuable source of information and that gifts are appropriate. The extent of such involvement was higher among physicians who prefer to ask PRs for information when a new medication becomes available, physicians who are not satisfied with patient encounters ending only with advice, and physicians who prefer to prescribe brand-name medications.ConclusionsInvolvement in pharmaceutical promotional activities is widespread among practicing physicians in Japan. The extent of such involvement varies according to certain physician characteristics. As a group, they are at risk for influence by promotional activities.

Project description:Physicians are considered to be the most informed consumers in the use of medical services since they have more information about diseases or medical technology. However, although plenty of researchers have suggested that different medical seeking behavior exists among physicians, very few empirical studies have been conducted to investigate differences in medical utilization between physicians and the general population.We explored differences in the utilization of healthcare services between physicians and the general population using a population-based dataset.A cross-sectional study.Data for this study were sourced from the Taiwan Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2000. We included 1426 physicians and 1426 sex- and age-matched comparison subjects.We used Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests to explore differences in variables of healthcare resource utilization between physicians and comparison subjects. We further used Kruskal-Wallis tests to examine differences in variables of healthcare resource utilization between physician practice location and comparison subjects.We found that physicians had significantly fewer outpatient visits (13.2 vs. 15.7, p<0.001) and significantly lower outpatient costs (US$477 vs. US$680, p<0.001) than comparison subjects. Furthermore, physicians had lower total health service costs than comparison subjects (US$643 vs. US$1066, p<0.001). This indicates that the mean total health service costs in the year 2010 was 1.66-fold greater for comparison subjects than for physicians. We also found that there were significant differences in the mean number of outpatient services (p<0.001), outpatient costs (p = 0.001), inpatients costs (p = 0.018), and total costs (p = 0.001) among office-based physicians, hospital-based physicians, and comparison subjects. Specifically, Scheffe contrast tests showed that office-based physicians had significantly more outpatient visits (19.3 vs.10.7, p<0.001) and significantly higher outpatient costs (US$656 vs. US$402, p<0.001) than hospital-based physicians.Physicians had less healthcare utilization than comparison subjects. Furthermore, hospital-based physicians had higher inpatient costs and less outpatient services and costs than office-based physicians.

Dataset Information

Knowledge Of Practicing Physicians About Their Legal Obligations When Caring For Patients With Disability.

Publications

Knowledge Of Practicing Physicians About Their Legal Obligations When Caring For Patients With Disability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets