Talk:Medical error

Good start, I would like to see a broader coverage of iatrogenic injuries, rather than the narrow focus the article has begun with (sort of restricted to IHI) , and, if you are agreeable, would like to help expand it. Of course, everything in it should stay- it's just that there's more to cover. :-) Nancy Sculerati MD 16:47, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Yes, please help expand it. I was just working from that good article I found. Lots of other useful things to be said. Fred Bauder 20:17, 9 February 2007 (CST)

It should be Medical errors, instead of the singular (that's how it's categorized in the medical literature), can you change it? I'm just learning. Nancy Sculerati MD 19:21, 9 February 2007 (CST)

The Wikipedia convention is to avoid the plural, not sure what the policy is here. To change the name just "move" it. Fred Bauder 20:17, 9 February 2007 (CST)

I also wondered if you can change articles. Do you "move" them? how does that work? Create medical articles, move the information, then make medical article a redirect? How do you make a redirect by the way? and then, after you make a redirect, how do you access the page if you need to edit the redirect to become a list of options to chose from? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 19:36, 9 February 2007 (CST)

When you move the page, the original page becomes a redirect. Coding for a redirect looks like this: #REDIRECT [[New name of page]]. After you make a redirect, going to the old page forwards you to the new page which contains a link at the top to the old page, allowing you to access the old page for editing. You can then made it into a disambiguation page with multiple links, if you wish. Fred Bauder 20:17, 9 February 2007 (CST)

It's not a Citizendium convention- it's the National Library of Medicine- Medline. Medical Errors' Database: Ovid MEDLINE(R) Nancy Sculerati MD 21:19, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Redirected Medical error -> Medical errors, copied discussion

I made the move for the article, but had to do the talk page manually. Am I missing something? Nancy Sculerati MD 21:52, 9 February 2007 (CST)

I think the talk page should automatically move when you move the article. Fred Bauder 23:12, 9 February 2007 (CST)

At Talk:Medical error you had put nowiki tags before and after the redirect code which tells the code to not work. Fred Bauder 23:16, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Malpractive

"In theory, if all caregivers performed within the bounds of professional XXX, the incidence of medical malpractice could be reduced to zero." The standard measure is "accepted standards of practice in the medical community." This standard of negligence can limit the scope of malpractice to instances of failing to do what is usually done. Framing the issue in terms of error expands the scope of the field to include examination of what might be done to improve on what is usually done. Fred Bauder 09:33, 10 February 2007 (CST)

Encyclopedic error

The sort of analysis involved here could be generalized and applied to errors and shortcomings in encyclopedia articles, both here and in other venues. Fred Bauder 09:37, 10 February 2007 (CST)

That is a valid point. The encyclopaedia depends much on every item being right, from the start, instead of trying to fix a cumulative mess later on. In anaesthesiology, the talk for years has been about ARCS (Anaesthesia-Related Critical Incidents), the idea being that it is a series of incidents ("small", non-dangerous events that deviate from that which is defined as acceptable) which, when not detected and corrected, causes an error (that which is plain wrong), which is more difficult to manage, leading to complications and harm (fortunately this does not always follow from error). The idea is that one should be eliminating ARCS, rather than worrying only about reversing eventual complications. The correspondence to aviation is striking, nothing new, and likely to be related - I do not know for sure. I do know that in 1983 I wrote a script for a training video for undergraduates that used precisely the pilot / anaesthesia comparison. Two sites that discuss the issue: The Swiss Critical Incidents in Anaesthesiology, and The Virtual Anaesthesia Textbook. The field is very wide, if one is going to include all medical errors, and one may have to break it up into different articles. At present I am sort of occupied with my own specific interests, but I will be back. --Christo Muller 15:51, 11 February 2007 (CST)

do not remove quotes, please

An edit was just made in which, probably inadvertently, quotes were removed from a line. The reference is still there. I put the quotes back, because otherwise, it's plagiarism. It's easy enouh to have a series of mistakes (speak of the devil!) and then have the next author remove the reference. We really have to work hard (vigilence!:-)) to avoid this. Nancy Sculerati MD 17:06, 11 February 2007 (CST)

As long as the reference is there, it is not plagiarism. Quotes signify the material was copied verbatim, which it wasn't. During a long course of editing, such as happens on Wikipedia where 500 or more edits can occur in a few months, references do become separated from the material they support, or they may remain after the material is no longer in the article. It is very difficult in the confusion to keep track of such things. Fred Bauder 09:28, 12 February 2007 (CST)

Tiny thing--I noticed an indentation problem halfway down the article...that would be a nonmedical error I guess. :-) --Larry Sanger 18:49, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Missing tag </blockquote> on the second block of quoted material. Fred Bauder 09:15, 12 February 2007 (CST)

Those two blocks that are quoted are quite extensive, but I think they originally came from IHI, not from the Infection Control Today. I'll look for the original source. Fred Bauder 09:28, 12 February 2007 (CST)

Found it on the IHI site. The quotes are quite extensive, and difficult to rephrase. The Terms of use on IHI.org are rather onerous. I would say they are fair use, but that kind of depends on what license you adopt. They might not be fair use for the extensive commercial distribution possible under the GFDL. Fred Bauder 10:02, 12 February 2007 (CST)

---

Pointed out that complaint about removing quotes was not justified, it was a paraphrase rather than a quote. I went back and checked: The Helmreich BMJ article: Pilots and doctors operate in complex environments where teams interact with technology. In both domains, risk varies from low to high with threats coming from a variety of sources in the environment. Safety is paramount for both professions, but cost issues can influence the commitment of resources for safety efforts. Aircraft accidents are infrequent, highly visible, and often involve massive loss of life, resulting in exhaustive investigation into causal factors, public reports, and remedial action. Research by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration into aviation accidents has found that 70% involve human error.

My writing: One approach is to apply lessons from aviation, "plane crashes are often spectacular and well publicized, resulting sometimes in significant loss of life. Consequently all plane crashes and other serious incidents are exhaustively investigated and analyzed with respect to cause. On the other hand, most medical errors do not have the same spectacular effects, thus do not usually receive the same intense scrutiny and analysis." [2]

It's true. I just hope I didn't quote another source and mis-attribute it. Nancy Sculerati MD 20:57, 11 February 2007 (CST)

---

Hi Frd, just got caught in an edit conflict _ hope I didn,t mess up your cite; I've been attempting to follow the nascent CZ Citation Help style in case you're curious about the logic.Gareth Leng 13:32, 16 February 2007 (CST)