terminology

Privates. I think is more a dignified word for the female / male parts. I think this would be promoting the persons dignity, if writing a report about this particular subject.

I see nothing undignified in referring to the penis and vagina, terms that most people understand. It is how the report is written that retains a persons dignity.

Using nicknames or euphemisms would be far more undignified if they were not understood by the individual when talking to someone about their genital area.

Terminology such as penis, vagina or anus is universal and unambiguous. It is the context/tone of documentation, discussion and engagement with individuals which either promotes or undermines dignity that is where the focus needs to be.

I think it takes a bit of getting used to, to use the medical terms penis, vagina etc, especially if, in your own personal lives we use more family friendly terms. However they are the correct anatomical words, are universally understood and in a medical setting most definitely not crude. In terms of dignity I think different people use different words to describe their own anatomy. I suppose one solution is if you know what term the particular individual likes to use for their own anatomy then you could use this; a person centred approach. And if you know that this person has objected to the use of penis in the past then you will need to find an alternative. But in the abscence of communication or cognition then the medical terms are the most appropriate.

There were no replies tot his one a few hours ago when I read it and then pondered if I could reply, and Jenny Trott has 'sort of beaten me to it'.

The original question included the sentence:

'I feel writing a daily report or behavioural care plan saying one will often touch and pull out his manhood is dignified and respectful.'

Well, a conversation and a report, should both be understandable to the people involved, shouldn't they ?

So if you are writing a report, and you know its readers will understand penis and vagina, those terms are fine [and probably the best terms to use].

If you are in conversation with a service user, you need to use a term which both you and the user both understand as meaning the same thing - it doesn't matter what the term is, and doubtless it will vary from user to user (the original mentioned 'lack of capacity' which suggests that you won't necessarily be able to say to a service user 'the term for 'whatever' is 'some term'' - so, you need to 'go with whatever term the user understands').

I gather that American women use 'purse' for what English women call a handbag', and a car 'boot' over here is, I think, the 'trunk' of the car over there.

It isn't a case of 'a particular word being right or wrong' - it is 'you should use the right word for the situation'.

I think Jenny Trott probably explained to better than I have.

I think it's most important to establish a common term in your own service, so that it can be understood by the people who are most often likely to read it. I've known it be referred to as all sorts, but I do think using the term preferred by the individual is good too. You could even speech mark the word. To use an example I recall, the gentleman's penis was referred to as his "tail", and that's how it appeared in his notes if it ever needed to be referred to directly. Where the individual is not able to state to preference, I would opt for the formal option, i.e. penis, as it is the clearest, and does not imply any level of informal consent or need to refer to it in slang terms.

This is off-topic - but I'm very impressed by the rapidity and sanity of the responses to this question.

If only I could get such numerous, informative and rapid responses to some of the 'nerdy' questions I ask !

Just quickly adding to Robert Pape's point. If you are recording a conversation within 'official records' - see Robert's 'tail' comment - I think you should record the words actually used during the conversation, and if the meaning of a word is potentially unclear, add a note explaining it (so the note would be, 'this gentleman uses the term 'tail' for his penis' - but any 'quoted conversation' in the record would use 'tail').

I have no problem using the words vagina and penis. They stipulate EXACTLY
what areas of the body we are talking about. Too much "slang" has been
formed about and around these words, and when rape/incest/child molestation
and other charges get reported to the authorities, these slangful
terminologies cab get very confusing with just normal, everyday words. By
then, an innocent person has been accused, arrested and the communities have
already shunned the person out.

I have seen divorces go ahead, people lose their jobs, get thrown out of the
church, thinking some vile pervert was roaming amongst them, all the while a
parrot had pecked a child on her arm. The slang is dangerous. If the child
had just said arm, the eyebrows would have gone up and more enquiries would
have perused, But because she didn't use the terminology, but because she
said in Dutch he "pecked her", it's the same as raped her.

THe bird pecked the little girl on the arm, but everyone has arrested the
grandfather. He died on jail, beaten to death.

Be careful what you write, and don't be embarrassed by the English Language.

Sally-Ann

Hi, I agree the correct terminology is appropriate and not seen as degrading
Sally

If this means nothing came close to the classic black and white, dark colors are always presented in their original bags Kate Spade owners, or because you do not have to worry.

Kate Spade handbags are usually clean lines and simple design features the painting found. Designers avoid the kitsch and bright colors. Kate Spade Handbags Brand maintains a discreet elegance, and it is in transition development in the world of fashion at checkout. They are hard times because of the brand of a policy are simply outdated.
See More : http://www.bonanza.com/booths/createnativa

I am out of the office, if your enquiry is urgent please telephone 01353
720775.

-----Original message-----
From: Dignity Champions forum <[log in to view email address]>
Sent: Thursday 18th February 2016 6:43
To: Claire Allsopp <[log in to view email address]>
Subject: [Dignity Champions forum] - Re: terminology

Forum message posted by keya tahmina.

Kate Spade handbags are usually clean lines and simple design features the painting found. Designers avoid the kitsch and bright colors. Kate Spade Handbags Brand maintains a discreet elegance, and it is in transition development in the world of fashion at checkout. They are hard times because of the brand of a policy are simply outdated.
See More : http://www.bonanza.com/booths/createnativa

blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } Terminology i use the term " privates" when dealing directly with a patient ( be it male/ female, however i use the medical terms when documenting or discussing with other service providers.. 

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

I think that penis & vagina are totally fine all according to the context of the rest of the wording used .

I totally agree. I did see some messages a few weeks ago where some people on this link were referring to 'Lady parts' as a proposed more dignified terminology for vagina. I was rather shocked and disappointed at this silly terminology as it can be can be confusing and misleading, especially for people with learning disabilities, the elderly or those who speak English as a second language.
What are peoples thoughts on this?

This message has been removed by a Moderator.

We don't use daft names to other parts of the body (e.g. eyes - 'peepholes'? Legs - 'walky-feet' etc).

'Penis' and 'vagina' are the correct words (and ones that medics use & recognise) so I would use them!

Just off to open my 'word projector' (mouth!) to talk with students.....

regards
James

Hi, the correct terms should be used, Penis and Vagina, what are private parts, you have to stick to correct vocabulary, the use of private parts is slang, and slang cannot be used within care plans, they are legal documents and as such have to be in plain English.

I know we get used to trying to soften these terms, but the statement has to be factual, rather than terms that we find acceptable.

Hi Clive [Ireland],

Slightly off-theme - why do you believe that 'care plans' are 'legal documents' ?

A written Advance Decision is 'a legal document' because the rules are in section 24 - 26 of the Mental Capacity Act.

Which 'law' is it that makes the things the NHS terms ' care plans' 'legal documents' ?

Cqc say they are

http://www.cqc.org.uk/content/regulation-9-person-centred-care

Loraine Atherton
Rmp care

[log in to view email address]

An intelligent yet amusing response....It made me giggle anyway.......Or should I say (My giggle box was activated) !

Thank you Loraine Atherton, I've very quickly had a look at the link you kindly supplied - I'll look into it in more detail.

But so far, I can see the 'care planning principle' and that is a legal requirement - but I can't actually see, where the record [a 'written care plan'] is defined as being 'a legal document'. So I am so far still of the opinion, that whereas a written ADRT is 'a legal instruction' to its readers, a written 'care plan' is more 'evidence of compliance by its creator with the law [that various things should have been done]'.

This might seem a 'rather nerdy distinction', but it isn't: what is an instruction, and what is information, is fundamental in 'planning'.

Thank you Loraine Atherton, I've very quickly had a look at the link you kindly supplied - I'll look into it in more detail.

But so far, I can see the 'care planning principle' and that is a legal requirement - but I can't actually see, where the record [a 'written care plan'] is defined as being 'a legal document'. So I am so far still of the opinion, that whereas a written ADRT is 'a legal instruction' to its readers, a written 'care plan' is more 'evidence of compliance by its creator with the law [that various things should have been done]'.

This might seem a 'rather nerdy distinction', but it isn't: what is an instruction, and what is information, is fundamental in 'planning'.

Following link from Lorraine, it looks like it comes under:

Reg 9(3)(d) enabling and supporting relevant persons to make, or participate in making, decisions relating to the service user's care or treatment to the maximum extent possible;

and

Reg 17(2)(c) maintain securely an accurate, complete and contemporaneous record in respect of each service user, including a record of the care and treatment provided to the service user and of decisions taken in relation to the care and treatment provided;

and also looking at guidance for further explanation.

Refering to the original post.

Using the specific anatomical term is most appropriate and unambigious.

Swapping with other words adds to confusion and misunderstanding for all concerned.

Someone might think 'manhood' along the lines of adulthood, childhood... neighbourhood!

The person writing report should be professional enough to use correct terminology, appropriate for context of care and treatment of person receiving treatment.

In my opinion the term that the client feels comfortable with taking into consideration their level of understanding should be used when talking to them on a one to one basis should be used.

When filling out documentation or speaking to the members of the nursing or medical team then the correct terminology should be used I.e Penis pr vagina

I have not yet properly looked at the Act, but 17(2)(c) will attract my attention.

As for the general discussion, is anybody sating that the record of a conversation with a service user, should replace the words used during the conversation (which might be 'what the client understands') with 'technically correct words' is right ? As opposed to explaining what actual words were used, along with an explanation of 'what [I think] the word(s) stand for' - my preference.

Because, I consider that unless conversations - where recorded - are essentially recorded 'verbatiim', then the record has been corrupted: such distortion can subsequently lead to problems, if a dispute arises.

This Health and Social Care Act is 'a nightmare' compared to the MCA.

With the clues helpfully provided to me in some of the earlier replies, I've just found a PDF and as Andy Shum pointed out above, in Regulation 17: Good Governance, we can find:

17(2) (c) maintain securely an accurate, complete and contemporaneous record in respect of each service user, including a record of the care and treatment provided to the service user and of decisions taken in relation to the care and treatment provided

But, it all hangs on that word 'taken' - if the action has been already carried out, then the record is a statement of fact.

But if the record is of 'advance planning' then it is a decision about something yet to happen - and Regulation 11; Need for Consent, we can read

'The intention of this regulation is to make sure that all people using the service, and those lawfully acting on their behalf, have given consent before any care or treatment is provided. Providers must make sure that they obtain the consent lawfully and that the person who obtains the consent has the
necessary knowledge and understanding of the care and/or treatment that they are asking consent for.
Consent is an important aspect of providing care and treatment, but in some cases, acting strictly in accordance with consent will mean that some of the other regulations cannot be met. For example, this might apply with regard to nutrition and person-centred care.'

The point is, that my understanding of both 'Informed Consent' (from mentally-capable patients) and 'best-interests decision-making' (if the person lacks mental capacity) requires 'consent' at the time of the action - bluntly, that the 'advance planning' cannot technically extend to the actual [future] decision already having been made.

Which is why advance care plans, are different from Advance Decisions - Advance Decisions have legal rules about their applicability in section 25(4) of the MCA, so for Advance Decisions 'the decision was made in advance'.

This is very 'tricky in application' - but I think, the difference is 'real'.