Talk:Patient gown

Advertising for the "Spirited Sisters"
A user posted a paragraph here that read like ad copy for a given product. I have removed it; Wikipedia is not a free advertising space. If you feel this is in error, re-format your entry in a manner which does not appear to be an advertisement.FA Jon 04:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

History and other info wanted
What I'd really like to see in this article is some discussion of why and when and how traditional hospital gowns were designed, and by whom; also information about how they're supposed to be worn (usually with the opening in back, right?) and how to tie them closed when they're worn that way. Anyone got any relevant sources? --Elysdir (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well according to thestar.com "The earliest photograph of the basic white gown is dated 1898." (Source: thestar.com - If the hospital gown fits ...) Jacob81 (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In which countries are used hospital gowns?
Only in USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.133.8 (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not only. But I presume in Poland it is not used, at least not as much as in USA. Though I've seen hospital gowns in some Polish TV series (for exampleSzpital (Hospital)) and recordings from hospitals, as well as in German, British, Canadian, Chech and Turkish ones. Also in Korean and Japanese movies/dramas patients wear hospital clothes, which are more or less similar to patient gowns. I guess hospital gowns are used in Thailand as the boys rescued from Tham Luang cave wore ones during their days in hospital. That's all I know. Tama Fan (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Robe to Wellness
To include this information, we need independent source (i.e. not written by the creator of the robe) to establish that they are important enough to be mentioned in this article. For example, the Cynthia Rowley robes were mentioned in a major news publication. Until independent, reliable sources mention the robes, we probably should not, per WP:WEIGHT. Yobol (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I am new to wikipedia and had not seen this part of the 'talk' on hospital gowns. So that is why I reposted without responding to this. I did, however, post in my personal 'talk' site which you had not replied to. Anyway, here is what I said... "The first time I entered text I agree that it could have been seen as promotional. I'm learning to how write in the wikipedia style. However, I have to disagree with your decision to remove my two later edits. In the last edit you undid, I simply stated the designer and described the hospital gown. I then said it was a part of patient-centrered care. There was two sentences that I describe an item with neutral, opinion free, manner. I properly cited what I said, even using an independent news broadcast. If my two sentences are not upheld then why is Cythnia Rowley or Tam Nguyen's still allowed to be a part of the article? Tam Nguyen's citation no longer even exists. The point is this style of gown is new and different in that it is patient-centered, designed by and for patients. It is not the massed produced or disposable, impersonal styles. It's designed to make patients feel more comfortable and confident. It's individualised by a part of a broader community project where breast cancer center volunteers sew in a personal message. The idea is by making someone feel better and more comfortable psychologically you are helping them heal physically as well. It's a real thing, stocked in hospitals across several USA states." Peopleswiki (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I understand that you believe this is important, it is not what you or I believe, but what our reliable sources say that is important. In this case, we need substantial independent sources describing its importance; a local news broadcast is probably not really appropriate to establish this is important to include in an encyclopedia.  In fact, I suspect the Rowley information is likewise not really encyclopedic and have removed it as well. We need substantial coverage in independent sources to include this type of information. Yobol (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually think it's really unfortunate to remove those posts. I think the point is that the top of the page describes what gowns look like/are made of. That is inaccurate because there are variety in types of gowns. They are not all cotton, mass produced, or disposable. I think it's appropriate to describe alternative types. That was all I was trying to say. I think the fact that you would remove gowns that were specifically designed for Muslim women showcases the many problems of allowing the everyday person to decide what is 'encyclopaedic', significant, relevant. If we go by a rule that the majority, or the norm are all that are worth noting we erase the experiences of people who are marginalised. Muslim women are not the majority in the USA/UK but they should still be able to access wikipedia and feel like their experiences are represented. Clearing 'hospital gowns' of the critique that the massed produced gowns are not suitable for Muslim women is actually really disappointing.

I think patients/service users are also marginalised, albeit in a way that is very different from Islamophobia. Patients' experiences are rarely considered and represented. That's why patient-centered care is significant. That's why wikipedia should especially promote the voices of people who are marginalised. Perhaps editors should even take note that marginalised voices are less likely to hit main stream media. Just because some experiences don't talk to a still largely Judeo-Christian, white, able-bodied media, doesn't mean they are not worthy of mention. Just because it may, or may not, reflect your experience isn't reason to disregard it.

Also, I am not going to bother going through the internet to find more independent media. Why? Because you are clearly determined to prevent me from posting. You even removed the Rowley article, with BBC citations! Peopleswiki (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not here to "promote" anything, we are here to produce a high quality encyclopedia. Yobol (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That's part of my point, you are promoting something. By considering only the experiences of the mainstream as 'valid' or 'encyclopaedic' you are promoting only their perspectives. If a piece on Muslim women's experiences is not considered significant enough to be included, then that is bias. I don't consider that 'high quality'. Peopleswiki (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are free to take this up with the usual dispute resolution process to get outside opinions to comment on this issue. Yobol (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that removing information about the needs of Muslim patients is a good idea. This got a lot of attention a while ago and is not confined to the one hospital.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

US Perspective
I have split the article into United States (big section), England (One sentence with inline citation), and Asia (One sentence). This is not a global treatment. Can other editors add to it? --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the split was a good idea. It seems to imply, for example, that only American hospitals have gowns for obese patients and only American teenagers are embarrassed by unexpected erections.  When something is true for pretty much everyone, it shouldn't go in a country-specific section.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the world doesn't care about medical staff seeing their bits. Or didn't until recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.125 (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality questioned
After reading this article I felt it was written like it was meant to scare people for their first operations. Nearly all of the section "United States" has information that is highly subjective to the patient and nothing to do with the actual clothing itself. I feel the section needs a rewrite. 82.30.199.250 (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So do I. I'll go ask for help at WT:MED, but feel free to start work on it yourself.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that I added the tag "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (September 2013)" with the hope or expectation that other editors would improve the article, and especially move material for all countries from the US section. There was only a little about other places before I made additions. I added mention and inline citations references to hospital gowns with Velco (R) closings rather than those strips to tie.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Reactions of children in the "Fashion and design" section
The following section in the article is cited. However, the information in it is not verified by the citation which doesn't address hospital gowns or underwear at all. A typical child observing a patient in bed, wearing a hospital gown while covered in bedsheets, could easily make the assumption that the hospital let that person keep their underwear on, and it can come as a shocking revelation to learn otherwise. The thought of a patient not even being allowed to wear their own underwear underneath a hospital gown can be a difficult truth for any child to grasp.Preparing Your Child

To me this appears to be some adult's assumption of what children may think. "Shocking revelation" and "a difficult truth for any child to grasp" seem overly dramatic, and the underwear worry seems like a minor matter compared to the concerns addressed in the article cited to support the paragraph. Further, the wording is in the form of hypothetical statements, and needs some supporting evidence from reliable sources. Also, it seems very culturally biased, maybe based on middle class American kids? For example, in all those pictures we see regularly on the news of refugee children being treated in hospitals, underwear and hospital gowns don't seem to be a worry. Thanks, Soranoch (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of link to commercial sales site
I removed a link to Welcome to Jazzy Hospital Gowns. It's a commercial site for selling gowns using PayPal for payment. I believe this is not a reliable source for anything. It's just a sales site. Thanks, Soranoch (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone put this ad link back in. I removed it again. Lesion  ( talk ) 22:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported content
Just removed a lot of unsourced content. This source also apparently did not support the content which it accompanied in the article. This source may be still be useful for anyone wishing to expand this article in future. I leave it here. Lesion ( talk ) 22:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed another sales site link
I removed the following: Gowns fastened with Velcro are available for purchase on the web. Also removed this: And this:

Also, the dictionary definition given at the beginning of the article says that a hospital gown is "3 a long loose piece of clothing worn in a hospital by someone doing or having an operation". But the article doesn't cover any descriptions of gowns worn by anyone "doing" an operation.

I don't think the Glamour article "Crazy or Cool: Diane von Furstenberg's New High Fashion Hospital Gowns? is a good source for this subject, and the Yahoo article is dated 2008, kind of a while ago before hospital practices reduced or eliminated hospital stays. The Reuters article has a better description of the need for hospital gowns (to reduce the spread of infections).  There are other problems also, like I don't think teenage boys make up a high percentage of hospital patients so their concerns shouldn't dominate the article at the expense of a discussion of the issues. The source for most of this part is a blog titled "Adolescent Boys and Genital Exams Reducing Embarrassment". The BBC article is more relevant. Soranoch (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think that hospital stays have changed much during the last five years. It's not like you can do bypass surgery as an outpatient procedure.
 * Glamour actually has a really strong fact-checking department. The big fashion magazines do more explicit fact-checking than even the best newspapers.  I haven't looked at the article, but it's likely that every medical fact in it has been explicitly checked by someone other than the author or editor.  This article is about Cosmopolitan's fact-checking process, but it seems to be pretty typical for that class of magazine.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no "medical" facts in the Glamour article. This is the article:
 * "'I told you about the new trend (most popular internationally) for hospitals to rival 5-star hotels with spa-like amenities. And now, it seems that one Ohio hospital is getting in on the trend, but from a fashion standpoint. Top designer Diane von Furstenberg (famous for her wrap dresses) is designing a new line of hospital gowns for the hospital. Would this make you feel better about having surgery? So far, the gowns are getting rave reviews, but male patients have complained that the gowns look too feminine. I'm all for improved hospital gowns, but am I the only one that thinks these gowns (above) look just every other ratty old hospital gown? Honestly, when I'm at the hospital, I don't care what I'm wearing--as long as it's warm and covers me up.'"
 * This is followed by links to articles like Scary! She Went to the Hospital, Gave Birth, and Went Home With ... Someone Else's Baby that states " And even though I know that things like this are one in a trillion, it's still very disturbing, isn't it?". Perhaps that was fact checked.
 * As for length of hospital stays, it would be ideal to have some statistics. My neighbor had a heart attack a few months ago and was kept overnight only. Thanks for answering. Soranoch (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Listed this article on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine
It was listed before a couple of weeks ago without much response. This time they said someone needs to go to a medical library to get the information. So that's the next step for someone to do.

I added a couple of really low level sources from Google Books which only listed a few very basic sources from "nursing textbooks" per the medial project's recommendation.

I tagged the article as incomplete and remove most of the long passage from the source on rectal exams for boys. Thanks, Soranoch (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Also I added a dubious tag for the BBC article claim. What's described in this article is incorrect regarding US hospital, so if such claims are to be made they need to be supported by empirically.


 * Further, I recommend that this article be monitored for spam links. I removed many. Thanks, Soranoch (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)