Nicole Agaronnik1, Eric G Campbell2, Julie Ressalam2, Lisa I Iezzoni3. 1. Mongan Institute Health Policy Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, the United States. 2. Center for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, the United States. 3. Mongan Institute Health Policy Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, the United States; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, the United States. Electronic address: liezzoni@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Kate M Flentje; Colin L Knight; Ingrid Stromfeldt; Anindita Chakrabarti; N Deborah Friedman Journal: Intern Med J Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.048
Authors: Lisa I Iezzoni; Sowmya R Rao; Julie Ressalam; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Nicole D Agaronnik; Tara Lagu; Elizabeth Pendo; Eric G Campbell Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2022-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Lisa I Iezzoni; Sowmya R Rao; Julie Ressalam; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Nicole D Agaronnik; Karen Donelan; Tara Lagu; Eric G Campbell Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Megan A Morris; Alicia A Wong; Brooke Dorsey Holliman; Juliette Liesinger; Joan M Griffin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Lisa I Iezzoni; Sowmya R Rao; Julie Ressalam; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Karen Donelan; Nicole Agaronnik; Tara Lagu; Eric G Campbell Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2021-06-23