Words that heal, words that harm: how the language we use shapes patient care.

Abstract

Purpose of review: The mandated accessibility of the electronic health record (EHR), including direct patient access through a portal, has created a unique and important opportunity for clinicians to examine their communication. This development underscores the importance of understanding how language - both written and verbal - may inadvertently reinforce biases, perpetuate existing disparities, and potentially distance patients from care. Indeed, the language clinicians use - whether written or verbal - is not merely descriptive; it is a powerful intervention that can either build trust or perpetuate harm. While often unintentional, the misuse of language in a clinical context is a significant and modifiable driver of health disparities. We will examine the mechanisms by which biased words erode patient care and then propose concrete strategies to foster communication that are precise, respectful, and actively promotes health equity.

Recent findings: The connection between language in a clinical context and bias, whether spoken or written, is increasingly acknowledged in medical education and research literature. This evolving field is especially pertinent to pediatric care, where communication plays a critical role in health outcomes.

Summary: This review defines stigmatizing language and explores how linguistic patterns can influence the physician-patient relationship. We delve into the ways the use of stigmatizing language reinforces broader societal frameworks, shapes clinicians' attitudes, and healthcare disparities. We illustrate how shifting towards person-centered language can transform linguistic patterns. As our digital age continues to evolve, with increasing reliance on social media and artificial intelligence, we urge physicians to model language that fosters inclusivity by offering strategies, at both the individual and system levels, to integrate into their healthcare communication.