I have recently been teaching my graduate vets and nurses the importance of names and perception. Working in the field of nutrition, the main example that springs to mind is how veterinary professionals in the UK refer to all clinical diets as ‘prescription diets’. This has come about because Hill’s uses the trade name ‘Prescription Diets’ for their clinical foods — much like how we refer to ‘hoovering the carpet’ when technically it should be ‘vacuuming the carpet’, with Hoover being the trade name. There are many examples of this, but we need to be careful of the perception this gives to clients. Describing all clinical diets as prescription foods gives the impression to the client that a prescription is required for that diet, which in the UK and the European Union is not correct. It is important we do not give false perceptions to clients.
I was taught never to use the term ‘put to sleep’ for euthanasia, especially after working in a practice where it also referred to anaesthesia. While informed consent is frequently discussed, the importance of clear terminology is often overlooked, despite the ease with which terms can be misinterpreted.
I’d like to reclaim the word ‘holistic’. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as treating the whole patient, considering mental and social factors, not just symptoms. For example, a cat with bladder issues needs more than medication. We must consider body weight, environment, stress, behaviour, nutrition – the list is extensive. This is holistic care, what some might call patient-centric or contextualised care. Do these different names change the outcome if we’re addressing all these elements? We have moved away from ‘gold-standard care’ as it is unique to each patient.
Do names make a difference, or is it the sentiment or emotions that the words or phrases conjure up that make the difference? To me, syringe-feeding an animal implies force-feeding an animal. ‘Restraint’ conjures up images of forcefully holding an animal down. If i am in a consultation and I need someone to restrain for bloods; I will say ‘I’m going to get one of my trained colleagues to hold and support “Fluffy” while drawing her blood sample.’ I never say, ‘I’m taking “Fluffy” out the back for someone to restrain her’ when we are going through to the Preparation Area.
How do you refer to other people that you work with? As an older RVN, when I started training, we had to refer to the veterinary surgeons as Mr or Mrs [insert name here], now we are permitted to refer to veterinary surgeons as Dr [insert name] in the UK. Many of my colleagues do not like this, they would prefer to be referred to by their first names by their colleagues to the pet owners. Is this helping with client bonding, owner concordance and compliance and increasing patient welfare, or eroding that hierarchical relationship between the client and the veterinary surgeon? I would love to hear people’s views on this. Do we want a hierarchical relationship between the veterinary professionals and the pet owners?
Names, the perception of what we call something, and the emotions words evoke are important. We need to be mindful of the words we use. Words are powerful; we need to be careful how we use them.