Building Bridges: Best Practices for Working with Administrators and Faculty Grace Clifford, MAEdDirector, Office of Disability and Testing Services Cleveland State University
Objectives • Define and identify roles in the interactive process • Learn how to identify and navigate the grey areas of overlap • Identify common barriers to building trust and effective lines of communication
The interactive process refers to the method of evaluating and determining accommodations by the intentional and collaborative gathering of information. The Interactive Process
This includes: • Review of supporting documentation • Follow-up with documenting professional (when necessary) • Meeting with the student to review the request • Review of current common and best practices • Curriculum, course, clinical, and/or programmatic review • Discussions with course faculty, program administrators, clerkship advisors regarding the essential requirements of the course/program
Always Include: • Student Disability Service provider (SDS) • Documentation (SDS) • Student • Course faculty/Clerkship advisor(s) • Research on common/best practices • Listservs • Colleagues from other institutions with similar programs • Review of current case law/litigation and literature
Dependent on Request: • Documenting professional • Additional programmatic faculty • Programmatic administrators • University Technology • Office of General Counsel
Student Disability Services (SDS) • Review supporting documentation • Review current common/best practice • Consult with necessary stakeholders (student, faculty, admin., clerkship advisors) • Determine if accommodation request is reasonable • If requested accommodation is rejected, document in writing the options considered and why they were determined to be unreasonable (Montgomery, Meeks, & Laird-Metke, 2016)
Faculty/Administrators/Clerkship Advisors • Assist in clarifying essential roles/fundamental requirements of the program • Assist in identifying technical standards considerations/patient safety concerns • Assist in determining whether those objectives can be achieved in alternate, but equally effective ways that would provide access • Explore and discuss all options (Montgomery, Meeks, & Laird-Metke, 2016)
Barriers and Solutions Opportunities • Promote awareness and find teachable moments • Proactively build relationships • Develop and harness current advocates • Identify and connect to current resources • Internally/Externally • Celebrate progress Challenges • Stigmas, Myths, and False Assumptions • Systematic Barriers • Lack of a transparent process • Communication • Culture bound concerns • Programmatically • Personal/Ethnic • Intersectionality of barriers
Questions to ask when you hit an impasse SDS • What were past interactions like? • What additional information, input, etc. would assist in moving forward? • Are there other individuals that could assist in facilitating the conversation? • Are there additional pieces of information, feedback required for me to better understand the concerns? Faculty/Administrator/Clerkship • What is my role in this process? (not as a clinician but as an educator/administrator) • Is this a unique opportunity for enhanced advocacy? • Is this an opportunity to review our policies/procedures/curriculum to explore new and innovative ways to educate our students?
References Henderson, D. K., Dembry, L., Fishman, N. O., Grady, C., Lundstrom, T., Palmore, T. N., et al. (2010, March). SHEA Guideline for Management of Healthcare Workers. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 203-232. Meeks LM, Herzer KR. Prevalence of self-disclosed disability among medical students in U.S. allopathic medical schools. JAMA. 2016; 316 (21): 2271-2272. Montgomery, T., Meeks, L., & Laird-Metke, E. (2016). Debunking Myths and Addressing Legitimate Concerns. In L. Meeks, & N. Jain, The Guide to Assisting Students With Disabilities: Equal Access in Health Science and Professional Education (pp. 213-221). New York: Springer Mehta L., Clifford G. Admissions as a Facilitator of Inclusion – Not a Gatekeeper. Disability Compliance for Higher Education. 2017; 22(12):7.