Talk:Ascension (healthcare system)

Infobox request
Hi editors, I'm KC and I work for Ascension. I was hoping to make some updates to the article so that the numbers are more accurate. I noticed that the infobox is a little out of date. Our latest hospital and employee numbers are 142 hospitals and 142,000 employees, per this Fierce Healthcare article. I won't make any edits myself because of my conflict of interest. I'd really appreciate the help! Also, if you are interested, I created a draft of what a fully updated Ascension article might look like. You can find that here. Thanks in advance for your help! KC at Ascension (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Hi, thanks for using the edit request system and following Wikipedia's COI guidelines! I have implemented the numbers fix. The draft would have to be a separate conversation; at first glance, one thing that raises a flag for me is the minimized content about the Project Nightingale controversy and several lawsuits. It's not necessarily the case that those should be narrated in extensive detail (relevant information that may be of use: WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:PROPORTION, WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE) but you will need to justify specifically why that coverage is decreased in your draft body of the article. Remember that Wikipedia's aim is to collect reliable coverage about a subject, which is subtly distinct from cataloging the capital-t Truth. To use an overly simplified analogy, if, say, 30% of reliable source coverage about X is about a lawsuit (even if that lawsuit is ultimately spurious), that's roughly how much attention Wikipedia ought to give to the lawsuit, while remaining careful to avoid taking sides (something that may well need to be corrected in the current form of the article). WhinyTheYounger (WtY)  (talk, contribs)  17:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the quick response and the feedback, WhinyTheYounger! I will definitely take a look at those policies and add my reasoning for wanting to reduce the content related to Project Nightingale and the lawsuits in a separate request. Thanks again! KC at Ascension (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Company overview section
Hi editors, KC here again with another request. I've seen a lot of company articles that have a version of a Company overview section that provides some of the basic operating details, like the revenue, locations, and leadership in one spot. I was wondering if we could try something like that in the Ascension article. I wrote something that may work and would love some feedback on it.

I think this new section helps improve the organization and keeps similar information together, while also creating a more complete and accurate picture of the full range of things that Ascension does. I have seen these sections as the first in the main body of the article, so maybe it could go there? As before, I won't make any edits myself because of my conflict of interest.

WhinyTheYounger, would you be willing to take a look at this request as well? I'd really appreciate it! KC at Ascension (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Done, but with one modification — I changed "Ascension is the largest nonprofit and Catholic health system in the United States." That fact is briefly stated in the Business Journal, but what it means is a bit unclear to me. Is that for 2021? Is it the largest nonprofit system, largest Catholic system, or the largest nonprofit, Catholic system? Largest by number of facilities/coverage, correct?

Apologies for the delayed response, thanks for using my Talk page. I will very likely be occupied for the next week in the real world and unable to edit, but I'll keep this on my list. Regarding the first sentence, if you can clarify the question above with a more specific source, you are free to go ahead and make the limited edit yourself if it looks like I'm still inactive (you can just note in the edit summary that it's a COI edit made line with consensus and a go-ahead on the talk page). WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  18:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * No worries about the delay! Thank you so much for the help, WhinyTheYounger! To answer your question, I believe the mention in the St. Louis Business Journal is referencing this ranking by Becker's Hospital Review, which says Ascension is the second-largest health system in the country by number of hospitals as of 2020, and is the first Catholic system and the first nonprofit system on the list, which would make it both the largest nonprofit and the largest Catholic system in the U.S. However, I'm not sure how editors feel about Becker's, so I'll refrain from making that edit for now. Thanks again for the help and I hope we can continue working together when you have time! KC at Ascension (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Project Nightingale request
Hi editors, KC here again with another request. I've been doing some reading on the policies WhinyTheYounger included in a prior comment (thank you so much!) and I thought I would try to address the concerns about Project Nightingale in this post. I definitely don't want to do anything against the rules, so I'll try to justify why my draft changed the content related to Project Nightingale so much using the policies.


 * One major reason for cutting down the content related to Project Nightingale in my draft is that the project has its own Wikipedia article. I think my summary of Project Nightingale is a fair summary of the information on the project given there is a separate article, per the content forking guidelines, though I would welcome additional feedback!
 * Another reason for cutting this down is the removal of language that does not seem to be neutral. In the opening sentence of the paragraph on Project Nightingale, it says "In 2018, controversy swirled..." This does not seem neutral in tone to me and there are a few instances of that in that subsection.
 * Some additional content removed was the sentence about inquiries from U.S. Senators. MobiHealthNews does not seem like a reliable source, and I think "inquiry" is also a little less than neutral, as it sounds like these Senators did a lot more than what actually happened, which was sending a letter to Google asking the company to explain how it will use the medical data from the project. This Guardian article explains it, and could be used to replace the MobiHealthNews source if we wanted to keep that sentence.
 * I think phrasing about how the partnership would work is inappropriate. The current article makes working with Google to improve care sound nefarious with such phrases "unspecified "tools" that would enable "doctors and nurses to improve care"" in the second paragraph. It wasn't a matter of not specifying the tools out of malintent, as seems to be implied, so much as it was the tools were still being developed, as is mentioned in the CNBC source. I think this middle paragraph constitutes undue weight to these ideas, but I am open to other interpretations!
 * In particular, I think this phrase from the section on undue weight applies (emphasis mine): Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.
 * I would argue the current placement and phrasing constitutes undue weight by the juxtaposition of statements, because of the implications listed earlier
 * Some other trimming has been done because there are some instances (such as near the mention of HIPAA) that offer additional unnecessary explanation because there is already a wikilink in place.
 * Further, some trimming has been suggested on the parentheticals and the em-dashed content, as I believe that constitutes undue weight based on depth of detail, and those details should be in the main Project Nightingale article
 * Finally, with regard to trimming and paraphrasing the final paragraph, that content isn't supported by the sourcing. The New York Times source does not mention privacy advocates or risk to patient privacy, though it does dance around the issue. The same is true of the Wired and CNBC sources. It's my understanding that the source must directly support the information in an article and I'm not sure these sources do. I'm also not sure HealthITSecurity counts as a reliable source, particularly for potentially controversial information. I am happy to revisit this however, if anyone has a different interpretation!

Well, that was a lot. WhinyTheYounger and others, please let me know what you think of this reasoning, and thanks in advance for working through it with me! I will address the lawsuits in a separate request. My proposed text for Project Nightingale is below:

Thanks in advance for the assistance! KC at Ascension (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Hi! I'll implement the above, replacing the current section text. Some notes:


 * I think you're right that the current section about Nightingale does not meet Wikipedia quality/content standards, including due to the issues you highlight with regard to undue weight, neutrality etc. To that end, your current proposal seems to be an improvement on the balance, though I or others may make modifications in the future, which you are free to contest or otherwise request to modify, of course.
 * On more arcane Wiki-lawyering, note that the existence of an independent article does not preclude coverage of the subject in this one; content forking guidelines are not directly relevant here except for the fact that they include reference to the need for a summary section. The question here is how extensive the summary should be, which is where e.g. WP:UNDUE comes in. To your credit, I do think there is overemphasis on the controversy currently and some pare down is likely warranted, after having read each of the sources.
 * I will note that I'm not sure I agree with your reading of the sources in the final paragraph (Wired, NYT specifically). That paragraph is non-neutral as it stands (e.g. "massive" risk to patient privacy) but the articles do indeed highlight the risks. Wired ends with "Legal? Yep. Creepy? Yeah, kind of." after having quoted a bioethicist and health law attorney on quirks of the Project. I will probably re-insert the Wired article as a reference for the sake of comprehensiveness to the above. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  17:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI I just added information this article to the end to help explain some of the benefits of the Project as well as ethical concerns. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  17:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WhinyTheYounger, wow! Thank you so much for your diligence on this request. I really appreciate you working with me on it, and I think the article/text you added from The Conversation does a really nice job of providing a balanced look at the project. Thanks again! KC at Ascension (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Lawsuits request
Hello editors, KC here again with another request. I wanted to wrap up addressing some of the things WhinyTheYounger brought up regarding the draft I created, namely the removal of two lawsuits and modification of another.
 * First, regarding the text about the ERISA lawsuit, I am proposing we modify it mostly to streamline the text. My version cuts out some unnecessary wording covered by the wikilinks to other articles and replaces the Becker's source with a higher-quality one. My proposed text is as follows:
 * In July 2017, a class-action lawsuit was brought against Ascension in federal court, alleging that an Ascension subsidiary had violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a law governing employee pensions. The suit was settled later that year for $29.5 million.
 * Second, regarding the suit with Dr. Denman, I suggested removing the suit because I do not believe the current sources are of suitable reliability for potentially controversial content and could not locate other articles that mentioned the suit in reliable sources; however, I am open to other interpretations!
 * Finally, regarding the D.C. suit, the lawsuit was dismissed by the DC Attorney General, who originally filed the suit. The cited Washington Post article says "the attorney general indicated in court documents that the city was satisfied with plans submitted by hospital officials for shutting down most services and in a March 1 filing voluntarily dismissed the case." I think the mention of the suit is unnecessary per WP:NOTEVERYTHING
 * That said, if editors prefer to keep mention of the D.C. suit, can we tweak the language to be more balanced and neutral and reflect why the decision to dismiss the suit was made (not that the suit failed, which is inaccurate), based on the above quote from WaPo?

Another long post! I hope that helps editors understand my reasoning for suggesting the removal or modification of those suits, and I'm happy to discuss further! WhinyTheYounger, would you be willing to take a look at this reasoning as well? I'd really appreciate it! KC at Ascension (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at this this week! WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  16:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thank you so much for taking a look! KC at Ascension (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is still on my radar, apologies for the delay. A busy few weeks. Feel free to ping/nag at me if I haven't taken a look by the end of the weekend! WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  18:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping me updated! I'll be sure to do so! KC at Ascension (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * ❌ The details are not hyper-specific and are accurate per the underlying sources so there’s not a compelling reason to cut them out. Becker’s is an acceptable source (most trade publications are, barring some indication that there is inadequate editorial oversight, etc.), but I’ve added the additional citation for comprehensiveness’ sake.
 * ❌ Multiple other sources cover this topic as well, e.g. the Indiana Business Journal and Becker’s. Note that reliability ≠ prestige/reach, and relatively niche publications for certain industries can still be quite reliable.
 * I have reworded the paragraph somewhat and updated it to reflect the withdrawal of the suit, but the content is indeed significant and should remain. Intuitively, a dispute that motivated the DC city council to specifically pass certain legislation is noteworthy, which is why it was covered in WaPo and the Washington Business Journal over several months. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  04:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for looking at this! What you have said makes sense and I appreciate your diligence in looking at this request! Hopefully the other requests I have will be a little easier. Thanks again! KC at Ascension (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

History changes
Hi editors, KC here with another request. I'd like to propose a couple of changes to the History section.
 * First, I suggest removing the Business model section content and merging it with the History section, as the content there seems more appropriate for the History section, something like this:
 * Second, I'd like to propose adding the following sentence:
 * Second, I'd like to propose adding the following sentence:

Please let me know what you think! I think these changes are neutral in tone and help make the article flow a bit better and the information more complete. I won't make any changes due to my conflict of interest. WhinyTheYounger, would you be willing to look at this request as well? I'd really appreciate it! KC at Ascension (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for allowing your requested edits to lapse this long. I will take a look at implementing these edits. Many thanks for following the COI process perfectly and patiently. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Minor alterations to first merge, removing in-text attribution to company officer in second. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries! I know editors have no obligation to review these requests so I really appreciate you taking the time to look! I think the changes you made make sense. Thanks for helping out! KC at Ascension (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Closing this request as answered, per above. If something is missing, please open a new request. Z1720 (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Innovation and recognition section request
Hi editors, KC here with another edit request. I was hoping we could add a section titled something like Innovation and recognition to the article that mentions a few accolades that have been covered in reliable sources. I was thinking something like the following text:

I am open to changes on this! I know that awards can be tricky and I did my best to remove any kind of promotional tone from this and only use high-quality sources. Please let me know what you think! As always, I won't make any changes myself due to my COI. , would you be interested in reviewing this request as well? I'd really appreciate it! KC at Ascension (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I opted against the heading as I think there could be reasonable concerns regarding NPOV. The tidbit about the Austin hospital dovetails with some of the information in the history section so I paired it with the material regarding the AMITA dissolution. The Fortune list seems applicable in the list of Ascension facilities. Could be convinced otherwise on that second citation, but don't want to create a new heading for it. Thanks again for following the process and feel free to ping me again if you have other edits; I'm not putting this article on my watchlist because I would prefer hospitals be handled by someone with more experience in this corner of the Wiki. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for responding so quickly again! I can understand the neutrality concern. I tried to model that after the Mayo Clinic article, condensing the two sections, but I can certainly appreciate why you'd be wary of the section header. I definitely want to make sure it's done correctly and follows all the rules so I appreciate your caution!


 * One thing I would note, one of the requests I was going to make in the future was to simply remove the Sites section. It is outdated and its inclusion seems to go against the encyclopedic content guideline. With that in mind, would it be possible to move the sentence about the Fortune rankings elsewhere? I also came across another rankings article, this one from Newsweek, about the best maternity hospitals in the United States and four Ascension hospitals made the list. With all that it mind, would it be possible to make a small Recognition or Rankings section with the Newsweek and Fortune listings, similar to other hospital articles? Please let me know what you think! KC at Ascension (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You know what, I'm going to mull that edit over. If someone else gets to it before I make a call, no biggie. Anticipate a response this evening. ~ 19:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate you taking the time to look! Did you come to a final decision? KC at Ascension (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for slow response. I’ll toy around with it in the article to see if I can get it to match similarly-sized hospital groupings, but tentatively consider it still open for other editors to input. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the diligence! If you have any questions or suggestions let me know. KC at Ascension (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just circling back to this, I'm going to close this out and make it its own request so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. KC at Ascension (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Remove Sites section
Hi editors, KC here again. I wanted to propose removing the Sites section, as it is outdated and I think it may go against the encyclopedic content policy. Could we then put the remaining content about the recognition received into its own section titled Recognition or similar? I also found a Newsweek article recognizing four Ascension hospitals for their maternity care that could fill out the section a bit more. Please let me know what you think! just to keep you in the loop, I've taken the second half of my last request and made it into a new one here. KC at Ascension (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , hi there! I'm Christopher, taking over for Gene. I was curious if you'd had a chance to give this any more thought? I'd still be interested in removing this section but preserving the magazine rankings. Please let me know what you're thinking! CH at Ascension (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! I'll take a closer look today but in the meantime please append the template most appropriate to you to your user page from this template set: Template:Paid. Thank you and, again, welcome to Wikipedia! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Great catch! Not sure how I missed that one. I&#39;ve made the necessary changes. I appreciate you taking a look at this request too! CH at Ascension (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * hi there! Just wanted to check in on this and see if you had any new thoughts. I&#39;ve got a couple other things I&#39;d like to request based on KC&#39;s draft, particularly related to how Ascension responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and some of the community efforts but wanted to wrap this up before I moved to those. I&#39;m happy to make those requests as well if you think now would be a good time to do so! CH at Ascension (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I have inserted material from KC's draft. Thanks for the ping, ; I can review more later this week at your request. I only caution against WP:RECENTISM. Thanks for fixing your paid-contributor notice! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for making that addition! I did notice a minor typo. Can you change the word &quot;say&quot; to &quot;saying?&quot; I know it&#39;s minor but with my conflict of interest I don&#39;t want to have even the appearance of impropriety so I&#39;ll refrain from editing the article myself.
 * And I will definitely keep recentism in mind. As research and drafting was underway, there wasn&#39;t much of anything on the early history of Ascension as Daughters of Charity/Sisters of St. Joseph Health, before the two merged. I&#39;d love to be able to include more of that early history but just haven&#39;t been able to locate much. I&#39;ll definitely keep you posted if I turn anything else up to give a more comprehensive look at the history.
 * And I&#39;m glad you caught the notice! I really want to make sure I&#39;m following all the rules and I appreciate the gentle reminder. Thanks again for your help! CH at Ascension (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * just circling back here to see if you'd seen my last message about the grammar tweak. I really want to make sure I don't have any COI issues so I won't make any direct edits. Thanks! CH at Ascension (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @CH at Ascension, I think you can correct such small grammar mistakes as long as it doesn't become an issue of content and not of form. Per WP:PAY, paid editors are "strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly", not banned.
 * Per WP:NOTBURO, "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." Thinker78  (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

✅-- Thinker78  (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help here, Thinker78, and for the note on bureaucracy. I wanted to be absolutely certain I was staying within the rules, so I took an extra cautious approach. I will keep that in mind for the future! CH at Ascension (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Retiring KC at Ascension account
Hi editors, in the interest of full transparency, I wanted to post here that I will be stepping away from Wikipedia and retiring this account. My colleague Gene will be making their own account and making requests in the future, and I'll be sure they know about the conflict of interest rules so everything keeps going smoothly. and, thank you so much for all your help over the last few months and reviewing my requests, I really appreciate it! KC at Ascension (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Goodbye, . Your commitment to and patience with the process was appreciated in dealing with the delicate subject of paid contributors. I hope you feel welcome editing in other sectors of the project! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for the kind words! KC did mention that they enjoyed the process and the friendliness of the editors before stepping away. I'm looking forward to stepping in and continuing the great working relationships they were able to establish here! GF at Ascension (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Taking over for GF
Hi editors, just wanted to stop in and let everyone know that I&#x27;ll be taking over for GF at Ascension as the company representative on this page. GF might be back in the future, but for the most part I&#x27;ll be the one making requests here. They have brought me up to speed on the process and all the great work KC at Ascension was able to do here. I hope to continue that good work while making sure to be very careful of all the rules. I&#x27; m looking forward to digging in! ~ CH at Ascension (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Community impact section
Hi editors, I had one last request I'd like to make. I wanted to see what you all thought of adding a small section titled Community impact or similar. This section would focus on philanthropic and community outreach efforts Ascension has made. This is from KC's draft, but I know that they did their best to use top-tier sourcing when drafting it. The text would look something like this:, would you be willing to look at this one? Hopefully it will be the last major request for awhile, and I really appreciate your reviews so far! ~ CH at Ascension (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the help you've given me with some of the other requests I've had for this article, would you consider giving this one a look as well? CH at Ascension (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Thinker78  (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! CH at Ascension (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Logo update
Hi editors, I saw that a request was made for a logo for this article. I&#x27;ve uploaded that image, found here. I believe I have completed all the required steps as listed. Catfurball, would you consider adding it to the article? Because of my conflict of interest I don&#x27; t make any direct myself. Thanks in advance for your help! ~ CH at Ascension (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I have added the logo. Catfurball (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! CH at Ascension (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead
Hi editors, with the body of the article updated, I'd like to propose an update to the lead. Some of the information in the current lead is outdated (CEO and 2018, for example) and I think something like the following does a decent job of updating those details and removing some of the less pertinent ones:Please let me know what you think! , would you be willing to take a look at this request as well? I'd really appreciate it! As always, I won't make any edits myself due to my COI. Thanks! ~ CH at Ascension (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw you edited the article recently. Thanks for moving that! The article has a better flow now. Would you be interested in taking a look at this request to revise the lead? I'd really appreciate it! CH at Ascension (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I removed the outdated information. And I improved the lead, I didn't word it the way that you wanted it to be. At least it is way better. Catfurball (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help here! I like the changes you made. As for a photograph, I don't have access to a good one that I can release under a Creative Commons license at the moment, sorry! Thanks again for your help here. CH at Ascension (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Photograph
I suggest that a photograph of the headquarters be included in this article. Catfurball (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

COI editing
This Wikipedia article has had an unusual degree of involvement by a paid employee of the subject of the entry. I just came here after reading the story about Ascension in the NYT, and read the history and talk before adding it to the entry. The NYT has has some critical articles about Ascension's financing, and what amounts to a transition from a non-profit to a hospital that's run like a profit-making business, with a chief executive, Joseph Impicciche, who makes $13 million. I realize that non-profit hospitals have to make tradeoffs to survive. I also realize that much of the NYT story comes from nurses and unions, who have their own agendas.

But look at the NYT story, which was summarized by the headline, "Wealthiest Hospitals Got Billions in Bailout for Struggling Health Providers." Your summary evades this issue and apologizes for it: "Ascension drew some criticism for receiving some $211 million in relief payments despite having $15.5 billion in cash reserves, enough to operate for eight months. Ascension representatives responded by saying the payments were justified as the company had not laid-off or furloughed employees during the pandemic."

The headline of the NYT story today was, "How a Sprawling Hospital Chain Ignited Its Own Staffing Crisis; Ascension, one of the country’s largest health systems, spent years cutting jobs, leaving it flat-footed when the pandemic hit." Compare that to Wikipedia's summary: "Ascension's "value of dedication" requires its nurses to work 16-hour shifts, according to a New York Times review of internal disciplinary records."

The underlying problem is that nonprofit hospitals are (understandably) caught in a bind in which their government funding is declining, they're now mandated to essentially become profit-making institutions, the easiest way to reduce costs (and increase profits) is to cut staff and services, including service to the poor if they can get away with it, and they wind up with a faustian bargain that goes against the original mission of the hospital. This shows up from the nurses' perspective with overwhelming work schedules and patients lying in their own feces. The NYT may be wrong, and there's certainly another side to the story, but that other side should be told in Wikipedia by WP:RS, not by the PR department of Ascension.

And what is this bullshit about "Community involvement"? The community around Ascension doesn't need chess clubs and golf clubs, they need more nurses and staff to monitor ICU patients with humans (not robots) and to clean them up when they're lying in feces.

BTW, I have friendly relations with lots of people who work in medical PR, and I appreciate their job, just as I appreciate the job of lawyers on both sides of a case. But I wouldn't turn over to them the editing of an article about their client. This article should be expanded to be based on the WP:RS stories in the citations, and deleted to remove the PR puffery. --Nbauman (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Community Involvement section
I removed the Community Involvement section because I agree with @Nbauman that it is undue. None of the three programs mentioned are notable enough to have their own pages, and other healthcare systems and large companies do not have similar sections in their Wikipedia articles. Martey (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)