Soft Skills Are Hard Skills—A Historical Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting paper. It makes points that very much resonate with a lot of the current work in person-centred care, but the authors do not reference any of this work and their terminology is different. They talk about 'soft' as opposed to 'hard' skills and the 'science versus art' of medicine distinction. But they are focussing on the skills practitioners need to develop in order to make the conceptual shift needed, to treat the whole person and to recognise the importance of human complexity and diversity. Their discussion of the history of ideas is pertinent and again resonates with work in person-centred care, though authors there often use the language of 'biomedical reductionism' and 'scientism', terms which these authors avoid.

The authors use sources that are very helpful and make their case effectively. I find the fact that they use different sources than I would to come to similar conclusions interesting, and I certainly see no need to penalise them for not referencing the sources I would use. They make the case in their own way and it is one that should be of interest to the readers, so I recommend publication. (As noted in my tick-box answers, the paper is well written but there are some minor errors/typos which can be addressed at proofs stage.)

Author Response

• Thanks for your comments

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

this is a very interesting paper on the role of physicians throughout time and on the necessity to combine strong theoretical knowledge with the so-called soft skills. This proves an important historical reflection particularly at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has put the patient-physician relation under strain. The use of the historical sources, especially of the classical ones, is appropriate and the overall take-home message is clearly understandable. 

Author Response

• Thanks for your comments