Standardized Language for Clinical Accommodations in U.S. Undergraduate Medical Training: Results From a National Modified Delphi Consensus Study.

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Zainub Dhanani, Suchita Rastogi, Matthew Sullivan, Rylee Betchkal, Peter Poullos, Lisa M Meeks
{"title":"Standardized Language for Clinical Accommodations in U.S. Undergraduate Medical Training: Results From a National Modified Delphi Consensus Study.","authors":"Zainub Dhanani, Suchita Rastogi, Matthew Sullivan, Rylee Betchkal, Peter Poullos, Lisa M Meeks","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000006150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Limited guidance on and access to clinical accommodations pose significant barriers to disabled learners' full participation in medical education. The lack of standardized accommodation language and institutional expertise leads to inconsistent implementation, creating barriers for medical students. This study aimed to establish a consensus-based, standardized language for clinical accommodations to improve clarity, consistency, and accessibility for learners with disabilities in U.S. medical schools.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A modified Delphi approach was employed to achieve consensus on clinical accommodation language. A committee of nine disability resource professionals (DRPs) compiled a list of 271 accommodations, which were refined to 89 unique accommodations after eliminating redundancies. These were categorized into six domains: adaptive equipment, assistive technology, communication access, location, individualized adjustment/need, and scheduling. Two groups (disability inclusion experts and clinical-phase medical students with lived disability experience) engaged in four Delphi rounds between October 2024 and February 2025. Consensus was defined a priori as 80% agreement on accommodation language.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In Round 1, none of the accommodations met the 80% consensus threshold. Revisions were made, reducing the list to 75 accommodations for Round 2, where 65 accommodations met the threshold. In Round 3, nine additional accommodations achieved consensus, leaving one accommodation for final revision in Round 4, after which complete consensus was reached. The outcome was a list of 75 vetted clinical accommodations with standardized accommodation language.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study produced a consensus-based list of clinical accommodations to educate and empower students, faculty, and DRPs. By standardizing the language used in accommodations, this work seeks to promote accessibility and advance equity within medical education. Future research should explore the effectiveness and feasibility of implementing these accommodations in clinical settings. Additional efforts should include expanding the guidance to DO-granting institutions, incorporating faculty perspectives, and evaluating the long-term impact of standardized accommodation language on clinical training outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000006150","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Limited guidance on and access to clinical accommodations pose significant barriers to disabled learners' full participation in medical education. The lack of standardized accommodation language and institutional expertise leads to inconsistent implementation, creating barriers for medical students. This study aimed to establish a consensus-based, standardized language for clinical accommodations to improve clarity, consistency, and accessibility for learners with disabilities in U.S. medical schools.

Method: A modified Delphi approach was employed to achieve consensus on clinical accommodation language. A committee of nine disability resource professionals (DRPs) compiled a list of 271 accommodations, which were refined to 89 unique accommodations after eliminating redundancies. These were categorized into six domains: adaptive equipment, assistive technology, communication access, location, individualized adjustment/need, and scheduling. Two groups (disability inclusion experts and clinical-phase medical students with lived disability experience) engaged in four Delphi rounds between October 2024 and February 2025. Consensus was defined a priori as 80% agreement on accommodation language.

Results: In Round 1, none of the accommodations met the 80% consensus threshold. Revisions were made, reducing the list to 75 accommodations for Round 2, where 65 accommodations met the threshold. In Round 3, nine additional accommodations achieved consensus, leaving one accommodation for final revision in Round 4, after which complete consensus was reached. The outcome was a list of 75 vetted clinical accommodations with standardized accommodation language.

Conclusions: The study produced a consensus-based list of clinical accommodations to educate and empower students, faculty, and DRPs. By standardizing the language used in accommodations, this work seeks to promote accessibility and advance equity within medical education. Future research should explore the effectiveness and feasibility of implementing these accommodations in clinical settings. Additional efforts should include expanding the guidance to DO-granting institutions, incorporating faculty perspectives, and evaluating the long-term impact of standardized accommodation language on clinical training outcomes.

美国本科医学培训中临床住宿的标准化语言:来自全国修正德尔菲共识研究的结果。
目的:有限的指导和获得临床住宿的机会对残疾学习者充分参与医学教育构成了重大障碍。缺乏标准化的住宿语言和机构专业知识导致执行不一致,给医学生造成障碍。本研究旨在为临床住宿建立一种基于共识的标准化语言,以提高美国医学院残疾学习者的清晰度、一致性和可及性。方法:采用改进的德尔菲法对临床适应语言达成共识。一个由9名残疾人资源专家组成的委员会编制了一份包含271个便利设施的清单,在消除冗余后,这些便利设施被精简为89个独特的便利设施。这些被分为六个领域:自适应设备、辅助技术、通信访问、位置、个性化调整/需求和调度。在2024年10月至2025年2月期间,两组(残疾包容专家和有残疾生活经历的临床阶段医学生)参与了四轮德尔菲研究。共识被先验地定义为对适应语言达成80%的一致。结果:在第一轮中,没有一个住宿达到80%的共识阈值。经过修订,第二轮的名单减少到75个住宿,其中65个住宿符合门槛。在第3轮中,9个额外的调整达成了共识,留下一个调整供第4轮的最终修订,之后达成了完全的共识。结果是一份75个经过审查的具有标准化住宿语言的临床住宿的清单。结论:该研究产生了一份基于共识的临床住宿清单,以教育和授权学生、教师和drp。通过标准化住宿中使用的语言,这项工作旨在促进无障碍和促进医学教育中的公平。未来的研究应该探索在临床环境中实施这些住宿的有效性和可行性。额外的努力应包括扩大对do授予机构的指导,纳入教师的观点,并评估标准化住宿语言对临床培训结果的长期影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信