Person-first language is taught in most health professions programs and mandated by scholarly journals but is often not practiced by health care practitioners. The disconnection between academia and clinical practice is significant. Students and new practitioners are often faced with the challenge of holding to their training or falling in line with the status quo. While the use of person-first language should be the norm in all health care settings, unfortunately, often the opposite is true. The person-first language movement began in 1974. Since that time, the culture of disability has drastically changed. There is greater integration of individuals with a disability and with that integration has come greater understanding and acceptance. Increased community integration has allowed for greater opportunities for advocacy and has also forced a shift in how the community at large views people with a disability. This shift in how individuals with a disability are viewed has resulted in a change in language. A change in semantics is not enough. Health professions educators need to ensure that students understand why this change has taken place and why it is essential. The power language can have not only on patient care but also on patient outcomes is profound and should be understood by both educators and practitioners alike. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the factors surrounding person-first language and its integration into health care, including the difference between what is taught and mandated, and what is practiced.

Background and purposeExperiential learning can provide students in entry-level physical therapy (PT) education programs the opportunity to practice skills and techniques, learned in the classroom, in a real-world setting. Experiential learning is currently being utilized in all entry-level PT programs in the form of professional practice experiences but may be integrated throughout the curriculum to enhance student engagement and knowledge application and retention. The purpose of this paper is to express the need for increased integration of experiential learning into entry-level PT education curricula.Position and rationaleExperiential learning can effectively replace a portion of in-class laboratory time in entry-level PT education programs. Several methods of experiential learning exist, including simulation, integrated clinical experiences, service learning, community patient resource groups, and professional practice opportunities. Students benefit from the ability to practice hands-on skills in a safe, nonjudgmental environment. Students can still experience consequences of poor decisions but can have multiple opportunities to master the skill without the fear of negative outcomes. Incorporation of high-risk age ranges and diagnoses can be achieved through simulation.Discussion and conclusionExperiential learning can be integrated into any PT curriculum if faculties are committed and flexible. Experiential learning may be particularly useful in specialty practice areas where there are fewer opportunities for students to practice skills. The practice of reflection upon experiences that is commonly performed in conjunction with experiential learning will help prepare students for the type of reflective practice that is essential to transition from novice to expert practitioners.

No abstract

No abstract