Can you know before you go? Information about disability accommodations on US hospital websites

Abstract

BACKGROUND: People with disability (PWD) face challenges accessing healthcare. Websites are a public-facing resource that can help PWD determine if a hospital can accommodate their needs, yet few studies have described whether hospital websites contain adequate accommodation information. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the extent to which information about disability accommodations is available on US hospital websites. METHODS: We manually reviewed hospital websites using a structured extraction form. We used the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Hospital General Information Data set to identify a stratified random sample of 600 nonspecialty hospitals in the United States. We excluded hospitals that shared a website with a previously reviewed hospital for a final sample of 445. We recorded (1) content about specific disability accommodations (in 11 predetermined categories); (2) descriptions of hospital policy mentioning disability; and (3) the point of contact to obtain more information about accommodations. RESULTS: About two-thirds (65.6%) of sampled hospitals were acute care hospitals (vs. 34.4% critical access); 53.5% had 26-299 beds. Overall, 73.7% websites had information about accommodations; of these, 36.3% had information solely within hospital policies. Of the 47.0% websites with accommodation information beyond hospital policies, the mean number of accommodations listed (excluding policy statements) was 2.37 (of 11 possible). Hospitals with 300+ beds had higher odds of listing any nonpolicy accommodations than those with 1-26 beds (odds ratio = 2.768, p = .02). Less than half (40.5%) hospitals listed a contact person. CONCLUSIONS: Information about disability accommodations is sparse on hospital websites. Comprehensive and actionable communication about accommodations is needed to better protect PWD's rights to accessible healthcare.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.