Although it has been more than 30 years since enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, people with disabilities continue to face physical access barriers, notably inaccessible medical diagnostic equipment, in clinical settings. Access barriers affect breast cancer screening and treatment for women with disabilities. We used standard diagnosis codes and natural language processing to screen electronic health records (EHRs) in a digital data repository from a large health care delivery system for patients with a pre-existing mobility disability who had been diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. We reviewed EHRs of 20 patients, using conventional content analysis to examine breast cancer diagnosis and treatment experiences. Clinicians noted challenges positioning patients for routine procedures, including manual breast exam, screening mammography, and breast biopsies. Given challenges accommodating disability for adjuvant therapies, mastectomy was favored over breast-conserving options despite early stages of diagnosis. Notations contained little information about proactive problem-solving for arranging accommodations. Notations described physical access barriers for breast cancer detection and treatment, with limited planning for mitigating barriers. Despite 2017 promulgation of federal Standards for Accessible Medical Diagnostic Equipment, implementing these standards requires further rulemaking.
AgaronnikN.CampbellE. G.RessalamJ.IezzoniL. I. (2019). Accessibility of medical diagnostic equipment for patients with disability: Observations from physicians. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 100(11), 2032–2038.
2.
AgaronnikN.LindvallC.El-JawahriA.HeW.IezzoniL. I. (2020). Challenges of developing a natural language processing method with electronic health records to identify persons with chronic mobility disability. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 101, 1739–1746.
3.
AgarwalS.PappasL.NeumayerL.KokenyK.AgarwalJ. (2014). Effect of breast conservation therapy vs mastectomy on disease-specific survival for early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Surgery, 149(3), 267–274.
AndresenE. M.Peterson-BesseJ. J.KrahnG. L.WalshE. S.Horner-JohnsonW.IezzoniL. I. (2013). Pap, mammography, and clinical breast examination screening among women with disabilities: A systematic review. Women’s Health Issues : Official Publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health, 23(4), e205–e214.
10.
BatesD. W.SariaS.Ohno-MachadoL.ShahA.EscobarG. (2014). Big data in health care: Using analytics to identify and manage high-risk and high-cost patients. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 33(7), 1123–1131.
11.
BouhmamH.RomanoskiA. L. (2020). Reducing barriers to breast imaging in patients with mobility limitations. Journal of Breast Imaging, 2(1), 56–60.
12.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018a). Disability and health data system. https://dhds.cdc.gov
DelbancoT.WalkerJ.BellS. K.DarerJ. D.ElmoreJ. G.FaragN.LeveilleS. G. (2012). Inviting patients to read their doctors’ notes: A quasi-experimental study and a look ahead. Annals of Internal Medicine, 157(7), 461–470.
15.
DesRochesC. M.LeveilleS.BellS. K.DongZ. J.ElmoreJ. G.FernandezL.WalkerJ. (2020). The views and experiences of clinicians sharing medical record notes with patients. JAMA Network Open, 3(3), Article e201753.
16.
FisherB.AndersonS.BryantJ.MargoleseR. G.DeutschM.FisherE. R.WolmarkN. (2002). Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347(16), 1233–1241.
17.
ForsythA. W.BarzilayR.HughesK. S.LuiD.LorenzK. A.EnzingerA.LindvallC. (2018). Machine learning methods to extract documentation of breast cancer symptoms from electronic health records. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 55(6), 1492–1499.
18.
HendersonJ. A.FergusonT. (2019). Breast examination techniques. StatPearls.
19.
Horner-JohnsonW.DobbertinK.AndresenE. M.IezzoniL. I. (2014). Breast and cervical cancer screening disparities associated with disability severity. Women’s Health Issues : Official Publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health, 24(1), e147–153.
20.
Horner-JohnsonW.DobbertinK.IezzoniL. I. (2015). Disparities in receipt of breast and cervical cancer screening for rural women age 18 to 64 with disabilities. Women’s Health Issues : Official Publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health, 25(3), 246–253.
21.
HsiehH.-F.ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
22.
IezzoniL. I.KilbridgeK.ParkE. R. (2010). Physical access barriers to care for diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer among women with mobility impairments. Oncology Nursing Forum, 37(6), 711–717.
23.
IezzoniL. I.KurtzS. G.RaoS. R. (2015). Trends in mammography over time for women with and without chronic disability. Journal of Women’s Health, 24(7), 593–601.
24.
IezzoniL. I.ParkE. R.KilbridgeK. L. (2011). Implications of mobility impairment on the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Journal of Women’s Health, 20(1), 45–52.
25.
IezzoniL. I.PendoE. (2018). Accessibility of medical diagnostic equipment—Implications for people with disability. The New England Journal of Medicine, 378(15), 1371–1373.
26.
IezzoniL. I.RaoS. R.AgaronnikE.-J. A. (2020). Associations between breast or cervical cancers and disability, accounting for screening disparities. Medical Care, 59, 139–147.
27.
IezzoniL. I.WintA. J.SmeltzerS. C.EckerJ. L. (2015). Physical accessibility of routine prenatal care for women with mobility disability. Journal of Women’s Health, 24(12), 1006–1012.
28.
Institute of Medicine. (2007). The future of disability in America (FieldA. M.EtteJ. Eds.). National Academies Press.
29.
KrumholzH. M. (2014). Big data and new knowledge in medicine: The thinking, training, and tools needed for a learning health system. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 33(7), 1163–1170.
30.
LaguT.HannonN. S.RothbergM. B.WellsA. S.GreenK. L.WindomM. O.LindenauerP. K. (2013). Access to subspecialty care for patients with mobility impairment: A survey. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(6), 441–446.
31.
LilleyE. J.LindvallC.LillemoeK. D.TulskyJ. A.WienerD. C.CooperZ. (2018). Measuring processes of care in palliative surgery: A novel approach using natural language processing. Annals of Surgery, 267(5), 823–825.
32.
LindvallC.LilleyE. J.ZupancS. N.ChienI.UdelsmanB. V.WallingA.TulskyJ. A. (2019). Natural language processing to assess end-of-life quality indicators in cancer patients receiving palliative surgery. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 22(2), 183–187.
33.
Maragh-BassA. C.GriffinJ. M.PhelanS.Finney RuttenL. J.MorrisM. A. (2018). Healthcare provider perceptions of accessible exam tables in primary care: Implementation and benefits to patients with and without disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 11(1), 155–160.
34.
McCarthyE. P.NgoL. H.RoetzheimR. G.ChirikosT. N.LiD.DrewsR. E.IezzoniL. I. (2006). Disparities in breast cancer treatment and survival for women with disabilities. Annals of Internal Medicine, 145(9), 637–645.
35.
McDonaldS.SaslowD.AlciatiM. H. (2004). Performance and reporting of clinical breast examination: A review of the literature. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 54(6), 345–361.
36.
MeleN.ArcherJ.PuschB. D. (2005). Access to breast cancer screening services for women with disabilities. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 34(4), 453–464.
37.
MorrisonE. H.GeorgeV.MosquedaL. (2008). Primary care for adults with physical disabilities: Perceptions from consumer and provider focus groups. Family Medicine, 40(9), 645–651.
38.
PennypackerH. S.PilgrimC. A. (1993). Achieving competence in clinical breast examination. Nurse Practitioner Forum, 4(2), 85–90.
39.
SandelowskiM. (2000). Focus on research methods: Whatever happened to qualitative description?Research in Nursing and Health, 23, 334–340.
40.
SandelowskiM. (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing and Health, 33(1), 77–84.
41.
SaundersK. J.PilgrimC. A.PennypackerH. S. (1986). Increased proficiency of search in breast self-examination. Cancer, 58(11), 2531–2537.
42.
SmithK. B.IezzoniL. I.KilbridgeK. L.PajolekH.ColsonK. E.ParkE. R. (2015). Body image perceptions among women with pre-existing physical disability who developed breast cancer: A qualitative exploration. Psycho-oncology, 24(12), 1826–1829.
43.
StoryM. F.SchwierE.KailesJ. I. (2009). Perspectives of patients with disabilities on the accessibility of medical equipment: Examination tables, imaging equipment, medical chairs, and weight scales. Disability and Health Journal, 2(4), 169–179e1.
UdelsmanB.ChienI.OuchiK.BrizziK.TulskyJ. A.LindvallC. (2019). Needle in a haystack: Natural language processing to identify serious illness. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 22(2), 179–182.
46.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2017). Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability; Notice of withdrawal of four previously announced rulemaking actions. Federal Register, 82(246), 60932–60933.
