Article Text

Download PDFPDF
‘They’re called what?’
  1. Debra Nestel1,
  2. Paul Murphy2,
  3. Linda Ni Chianain3,
  4. Gerard Gormley3
  1. 1 Monash Institute for Health and Clinical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
  2. 2 School of Arts, English and Languages, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
  3. 3 Centre for Medical Education, Clinical Skills Education Centre (CSEC), Queen’s University Belfast School of Medicine Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Ireland
  1. Correspondence to Debra Nestel, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, 27 Rainforest Walk, Clayton 3168, Australia; debra.nestel{at}monash.edu; dnestel{at}unimelb.edu.au

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Dear Editor

‘They’re called what? Standardised patients—you must be kidding. That’s so dehumanising!’ [Patient advocate being oriented to healthcare simulation practices]

We welcome the invitation from Sanko et al (2020) to seek clarity of terms used to describe what we know as ‘simulated participants’.1 While seeking a common language has great value as Sanko et al eloquently describe, we place even greater value on the use of inclusive, respectful and sensitive language.

For over 15 years, the authors have variously flagged issues associated with the use of the terms simulated patient and standardised patient.2–5 Our argument with using standardised before the word patient is that it is in tension with values of patient-centredness and person-centredness and, …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter Gerard Gormley @DrGerryG, Debra Nestel twitter @DebraNestel, Paul Murphy @MurphingtonPost and Linda Nu Chianain @banaltra_glas.

  • Contributors DN developed the content, drafted and then revised the letter, approved the final version and is accountable for the integrity of the work. PM, LNC and GG, revised the content, approved the final version and is accountable for the integrity of the work.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.