MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408389276 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000006027

Implementation of a Policy for Accommodations for Physicians With Disabilities

2025· article· en· W4408389276 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Camille Munro, Greg Knoll, Kathleen Gartke, Michael Quon

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Reasonable accommodationWork (physics)AccommodationMedical educationProcess (computing)PsychologyPublic relationsMedicineNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Although physicians with disabilities are underrepresented in medicine, their lived experiences of disability can increase empathy for patients, enrich the learning environment, and improve working conditions. However, they face barriers related to procedures, policies, clinical accommodations, disability and wellness support services, and physical environments as well as cultural barriers that affect their meaningful inclusion and ability to work at their full capacity. Despite national Canadian physician organizations recommending accommodations and inclusive policies and practices, an environmental scan of the top 10 ranked Canadian hospital institutions in April-May 2020 did not identify any existing accommodations policies.The Medical Advisory Committee and senior management team at The Ottawa Hospital (TOH) formally endorsed the first position statement in Canada supporting physicians with disabilities in 2021, which led to the establishment of a process to develop and implement an accessibility and accommodations policy for the Department of Medicine (DOM) at TOH. After careful review and an iterative development process, the DOM approved a formal Accessibility and Accommodations Policy in June 2022. The policy ensures physicians are accommodated during the recruitment, interview, and appointment phases. It outlines a process for the development of an accommodation plan, addresses funding for accommodations, protects physicians returning to work following absences due to a disability, and requires exploration of opportunities for physicians to make a meaningful contribution if they cannot practice clinically due to their disability.In this article, the authors discuss the process of developing and implementing the DOM Accessibility and Accommodations Policy, outline the key elements of the policy, and discuss broader implementation of the policy and how they are monitoring its impact. They also discuss the importance and benefits of collecting data on physicians who self-identify as having a disability and, through confidential surveys, focus groups, and interviews, monitoring the impact of accessibility and accommodations policies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.129
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.161
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1290.161
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.006
Scholarly communication0.0140.007
Open science0.0060.013
Research integrity0.0250.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.485 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207