3.8 Article

Disability-inclusive compassionate care: Disability competencies for an Indian Medical Graduate

Journal

JOURNAL OF FAMILY MEDICINE AND PRIMARY CARE
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages 1719-1727

Publisher

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1211_19

Keywords

Accessibility; autonomy; competency-based education; dignity; disabled persons; equality; healthcare disparities; human rights; nondiscrimination; participation

Funding

  1. University of Chicago Center in Delhi

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The new curriculum of the Medical Council of India (MCI) lacks disability-related competencies. This further involves the risk of perpetuating the medicalization of diverse human experiences and many medical students may graduate with little to no exposure to the principles of disability-inclusive compassionate care. Taking into consideration the UN Convention, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act 2016, and by involving the three key stakeholders - disability rights activists, doctors with disabilities, and health profession educators - in the focus group discussions, 52 disability competencies were framed under the five roles of an Indian Medical Graduate (IMG) as prescribed by the MCI. Based on feedback from other stakeholders all over India, the competencies were further refined into 27 disability competencies (clinician: 9; leader: 4; communicator: 5; lifelong learner: 5; and professional: 4) which the stakeholders felt should be demonstrated by health professionals while they care for patients with disabilities. The competencies are based on the human rights approach to disability and are also aligned with the competencies defined by accreditation boards in the US and in Canada. The paper describes the approach used in the framing of these competencies, and how parts of these were ultimately included in the new competency-based medical education curriculum in India.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available