The Evidence Is Alarming
The results were striking. Clinicians who read the stigmatizing note held significantly more negative attitudes toward the patient and prescribed significantly less aggressive pain treatment. Same patient. Same disease. Different words. Different care.
This isn't an isolated finding. A cross-sectional analysis of over 48,000 hospital admission notes found that stigmatizing language appeared significantly more often in notes written about Black patients compared to White patients — across all conditions studied. Separate research found Black patients were 2.5 times more likely to have negative descriptors in their records. These disparities extend across gender, socioeconomic status, and insurance type.
The chart note becomes a cognitive anchor. Every subsequent clinician who opens that record is primed — before they ever meet the patient.
Five Ways We Get It Wrong
Your Patients Are Reading Their Charts
When a patient opens their chart and reads that they're a "substance abuser,” that they "refused" treatment, or that their reported symptoms appear in skeptical quotation marks, the therapeutic alliance fractures. Research shows this exposure drives internalized stigma, healthcare avoidance, and the withholding of critical health information in future encounters. An estimated 16% of people with substance use disorders have reported not seeking treatment specifically because of stigma concerns.
The era of writing notes only for other clinicians is over.
What Better Documentation Looks Like
Instead of “Patient is non-compliant with medication," → "Patient is not taking medication due to cost/side effects/misunderstanding." This identifies the actual barrier and opens a path to solving it.
Instead of "Patient failed chemotherapy" → "Disease did not respond to chemotherapy." The treatment failed. Not the human being.
Instead of "Addict or substance abuser" → "Person with a substance use disorder." This reflects the medical consensus that addiction is a chronic, treatable condition — not an identity.
Instead of “Patient refused oxygen therapy" → "Patient declined oxygen therapy." One word. The difference between defiance and autonomy.
The AMA, AAMC, NIDA, and ASAM all now publish explicit guidance on eliminating stigmatizing terminology from clinical documentation. Trauma-informed documentation asks us to shift from "What is wrong with this patient?" to "What has happened to this patient?"—and to chart accordingly.
The Technology Is Coming
But technology alone won't fix this. The shift starts with how we train providers to think, speak, and write about the people in their care.
Where Anodunos Comes In
Our education addresses the intersection of stigmatizing language and chronic pain management head-on. We teach providers to recognize how documentation shapes clinical decision-making, to replace pejorative shorthand with objective clinical descriptions, and to build the trust that effective pain care requires. Because when it comes to chronic pain, the words in the chart often determine whether a patient receives treatment or is turned away.
The principle that guides everything we do: Nothing About Us, Without Us.
If your organization is ready to transform how your team documents, communicates, and delivers care for people living with chronic pain, we'd welcome the conversation.
Learn more at Anodunos.
In a landmark study out of Johns Hopkins, 413 physicians-in-training read one of two chart notes describing the same patient — a 28-year-old man with sickle cell disease presenting with a vaso-occlusive crisis. The medical facts were identical. The only difference was language: one note was neutral, the other contained stigmatizing phrasing.
The results were striking. Clinicians who read the stigmatizing note held significantly more negative attitudes toward the patient and prescribed significantly less aggressive pain treatment. Same patient. Same disease. Different words. Different care.
This isn't an isolated finding. A cross-sectional analysis of over 48,000 hospital admission notes found that stigmatizing language appeared significantly more often in notes written about Black patients compared to White patients — across all conditions studied. Separate research found Black patients were 2.5 times more likely to have negative descriptors in their records. These disparities extend across gender, socioeconomic status, and insurance type.
The chart note becomes a cognitive anchor. Every subsequent clinician who opens that record is primed — before they ever meet the patient.
Five Ways We Get It Wrong
Researchers have identified distinct categories of stigmatizing language that routinely appear in EHR documentation. Recognizing them is the first step toward changing them.
- Questioning credibility. Using "claims," "alleges," or placing quotation marks around reported symptoms doesn't preserve clinical accuracy — it signals disbelief. When we write that a patient "claims" 10/10 pain, we're telling the next provider to be skeptical before they've assessed anything.
- Labeling patients as "difficult." Describing someone as aggressive, combative, or hysterical frames physiological or psychological distress as a character flaw. It reduces clinical empathy and shuts down problem-solving.
- Applying the "drug-seeking" label. Once this appears in a permanent record, subsequent providers are primed to view the patient's pain as illegitimate. It routinely leads to withholding of appropriate analgesia, premature discharges, and forced medication tapers — ignoring the well-documented phenomenon of pseudoaddiction, where inadequately treated pain produces the very behaviors we're labeling as aberrant.
- Documenting "non-compliance." This authoritarian framing erases context. A patient may not be taking a medication because they can't afford it, can't tolerate the side effects, or don't understand the dosing. Writing "non-compliant" blames the patient for what is often a systemic failure.
- Conflating physical dependence with addiction. This remains one of the most dangerous documentation errors in medicine. Physical dependence is an expected neurobiological adaptation to chronic medication exposure. Addiction is a complex behavioral disorder involving loss of control and continued use despite harm. Mislabeling a physically dependent patient as "addicted" can result in abrupt medication cessation, which research links to a threefold increase in overdose death risk.
Your Patients Are Reading Their Charts
Since the spring of 2021, the 21st Century Cures Act has required that clinical notes be made immediately available to patients through secure portals. The audience for your documentation has fundamentally changed.
When a patient opens their chart and reads that they're a "substance abuser,” that they "refused" treatment, or that their reported symptoms appear in skeptical quotation marks, the therapeutic alliance fractures. Research shows this exposure drives internalized stigma, healthcare avoidance, and the withholding of critical health information in future encounters. An estimated 16% of people with substance use disorders have reported not seeking treatment specifically because of stigma concerns.
The era of writing notes only for other clinicians is over.
What Better Documentation Looks Like
The shift isn't about political correctness — it's about clinical precision and patient safety.
Instead of “Patient is non-compliant with medication," → "Patient is not taking medication due to cost/side effects/misunderstanding." This identifies the actual barrier and opens a path to solving it.
Instead of "Patient failed chemotherapy" → "Disease did not respond to chemotherapy." The treatment failed. Not the human being.
Instead of "Addict or substance abuser" → "Person with a substance use disorder." This reflects the medical consensus that addiction is a chronic, treatable condition — not an identity.
Instead of “Patient refused oxygen therapy" → "Patient declined oxygen therapy." One word. The difference between defiance and autonomy.
The AMA, AAMC, NIDA, and ASAM all now publish explicit guidance on eliminating stigmatizing terminology from clinical documentation. Trauma-informed documentation asks us to shift from "What is wrong with this patient?" to "What has happened to this patient?"—and to chart accordingly.
The Technology Is Coming
NLP-based systems are now being developed to flag stigmatizing language in real time, before notes are finalized. Advanced models are already detecting bias with remarkable accuracy — distinguishing between objective clinical reporting and biased narrative framing. Systems like ENGAGE, funded by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, aim to suggest neutral, patient-centered alternatives at the point of documentation.
But technology alone won't fix this. The shift starts with how we train providers to think, speak, and write about the people in their care.
Where Anodunos Comes In
At Anodunos, this is precisely the work we do. Through the Anodunos Method Navigator (AMN) and Anodunos Method Provider (AMP) programs, we train healthcare professionals and Pain Navigators in the language, frameworks, and clinical approaches that center the patient, not bias.
Our education addresses the intersection of stigmatizing language and chronic pain management head-on. We teach providers to recognize how documentation shapes clinical decision-making, to replace pejorative shorthand with objective clinical descriptions, and to build the trust that effective pain care requires. Because when it comes to chronic pain, the words in the chart often determine whether a patient receives treatment or is turned away.
The principle that guides everything we do: Nothing About Us, Without Us.
If your organization is ready to transform how your team documents, communicates, and delivers care for people living with chronic pain, we'd welcome the conversation.
Learn more at Anodunos.
The Anodunos Method
Quick links
Created with
