A Survey of Family Medicine Department Chairs About Faculty With Disabilities: A CERA Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite 21 million US adults having a disability, little is known about the types of disabilities among faculty in family medicine departments, accommodations used, or work limitations.

METHODS: We surveyed family medicine department chairs electronically about the number, types of disabilities encountered, accommodations and associated costs, and attitudes toward family medicine faculty with disabilities. This 10-item survey was part of the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance omnibus survey. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: The survey response rate was 59% (88/148). Types of disabilities were reported for approximately 50 faculty members by 31 department chairs; only seven knew about the disability at hiring. The most common impairments were mobility, hearing, and mental health problems. Accommodations included adjusting schedules, additional time to meet tasks, and assistive technology. No additional costs were reported for accommodations by about one-third of respondents while costs were over $5,000 for approximately one-quarter. Most chairs reported that faculty performance was similar to peers without disabilities (42.2%) or adequate but not at the level of peers (40%); only one reported inadequate job performance. Faculty members with disabilities appeared to be accepted by peers, patients, learners, and staff, and only two faculty left their program because of the disability.

CONCLUSIONS: Most chairs did not report experience with faculty members with disabilities. The disabilities encountered and accommodations were not unusual, but costs were sometimes high. While about half of chairs reported adequate or superior job performance for their faculty with disabilities, a sizeable minority judged such faculty to have poorer performance than peers despite reporting wide acceptance of faculty with disabilities by patients and colleagues. This study raises concerns about potential underreporting by faculty with disabilities and poorer perceived job performance despite wide acceptance and provision of accommodations, sometimes at high cost.