The Importance of Language in Healthcare

What Is a Sensitivity Review?

A sensitivity review is an editorial review designed to catch bias, exclusionary language, or outdated terms before they reach patients, students, or professionals. It combines clinical accuracy with equity-focused awareness to identify language that might unintentionally harm or alienate readers.

In short:

Sensitivity review = accuracy + inclusivity + respect.

This process checks for:

• Outdated or stigmatizing terminology

• Coded bias and tone

• Representational imbalance

• Alignment with current style and equity standards (AMA, APA, CDC, and NCCN guidelines)

  
  

Why Language Matters in Healthcare

Language directly affects trust, adherence, and patient outcomes. Studies show that patients who feel respected in how they’re addressed are more likely to engage in care and disclose critical information. The AMA and AAMC’s Guide to Language, Narrative, and Concepts underscores that outdated or stigmatizing language perpetuates inequity, even when unintentional. Similarly, the CDC’s Inclusive Communication Guidelines emphasize that respectful communication is an ethical cornerstone of public health.

In healthcare education, the impact is magnified. The words found in textbooks, exam questions, and online learning modules become the framework for how future providers perceive and discuss human difference.

The Evolution of Healthcare Language

Over time, many once-standard medical terms have fallen out of use, and for good reason. Here are a few examples that demonstrate how language has evolved toward greater precision, inclusion, and humanity:

| Domain | Older / Outdated Phrasing | More Current / Respectful Language | Why It Matters |

|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Diagnosis & identity | “cancer victims,” “victims of abuse,” “diabetics” | “people with cancer,” “people affected by abuse,” “people with diabetes” | “Victim” language implies helplessness and centers harm rather than resilience. Person-first phrasing recognizes autonomy and dignity. |

| Race & ethnicity | “Negro,” “Oriental,” “Indian” | “Black or African American,” “Asian,” “Indigenous” or the person’s specific tribal identity | These terms reflect colonial or segregation-era categories. Modern usage prioritizes accuracy and self-identification. |

| Sexual & gender identity | “transvestite,” “hermaphrodite,” “sex change” | “transgender person,” “intersex person,” “gender-affirming surgery” | Older terms are pathologizing or offensive. Updated language affirms identity and avoids medicalized framing. |

| Health metaphors | “lost their battle with cancer,” “fighting disease” | “living with cancer,” “responding to treatment” | War metaphors create blame narratives and imply failure when someone dies. |

| Systemic framing | “noncompliant patient,” “frequent flyer” | “person experiencing barriers to adherence,” “patient with complex needs” | Shifts focus from patient blame to system barriers and access to care. |

When “Updated” Isn’t Inclusive Enough

Even when overtly racist or colonial terms have been removed, bias often persists in subtler phrasing — the kind that still appears in healthcare writing today.

Example:

Before (problematic excerpt):

“Blacks often have a higher incidence of hypertension and tend to be noncompliant with treatment.”

What’s wrong here:

• “Blacks” used as a noun reduces people to a label.

• “Noncompliant” implies moral failure rather than considering barriers to care.

• The framing suggests inherent deficit rather than structural inequity.

  
  

After (revised excerpt):

“Among Black or African American populations, hypertension rates are disproportionately high, largely due to social and structural factors such as access to care, chronic stress, and socioeconomic inequities.”

Why this matters:

• Centers humanity and specificity.

• Reflects equity-based understanding of health disparities.

• Replaces blame with systemic context, modeling how inclusive language enhances accuracy and compassion.

  
  

Case Study: How Sensitivity Reviews Work

Imagine your organization develops a patient education booklet or an online hospital orientation module. It’s clinically sound, reviewed by experts, compliant with evidence-based guidelines, but it includes sentences like:

“Transvestite patients often struggle with treatment compliance.”

"Native Indian populations have higher rates of diabetes.”

“Cancer victims are among the most vulnerable.”

A sensitivity review flags these issues before publication. Each phrase is evaluated for tone, cultural relevance, and clinical precision:

• “Transvestite” → “Transgender person” or “trans person” (accurate, non-pathologizing)

• “Native Indian” → “Indigenous” or the specific Nation (e.g., “Navajo Nation”)

• “Cancer victims” → “People living with cancer” (empowering, trauma-informed)

  
  

The sensitivity reviewer’s job isn’t just to edit; it’s to explain why the language matters, cite inclusive style guides, and help your team align with modern best practices.

The Hidden Costs of Outdated Language

Language isn’t just a communication issue — it’s a risk factor.

• Implicit bias training gaps: Educational materials that normalize biased phrasing teach students to replicate those biases in practice.

• Financial and legal exposure: Organizations face greater reputational and liability risk as patients, learners, and advocacy groups demand equitable representation in healthcare content.

• Accreditation and compliance: Accrediting bodies and journals increasingly require inclusive terminology and demographic transparency (see AMA, NCCN, and APA guidance).

• Trust and engagement: Outdated or demeaning language erodes credibility and alienates communities already harmed by healthcare inequities.

  
  

In an era of equity accountability, words are not neutral; they carry professional, ethical, and sometimes financial weight.

Language Is a Living Part of Care

Every generation of healthcare providers inherits a new language of care. Sensitivity reviews ensure that evolution keeps pace with community standards, clinical precision, and cultural respect.

At Conscious By Us, our editorial sensitivity reviews bring a lens of health equity, linguistic precision, and lived experience to your healthcare materials. We don’t just edit your words; we help your message heal.

Conclusion: Embracing Inclusive Language

As we navigate the complexities of healthcare, it’s essential to remember that language is a powerful tool. It can build bridges or create barriers. By embracing inclusive language, we foster an environment where everyone feels seen, heard, and respected. Together, we can transform healthcare communication and promote a more equitable future.

In this journey, let’s commit to using language that uplifts and empowers. Let’s work together to ensure that our words reflect the dignity and humanity of every individual.

For more insights on how to improve your healthcare content, consider a sensitivity review with us. It’s a step toward creating a more inclusive and understanding healthcare environment.