Talk:Cleveland Clinic/Archive 2

More Quality and Safety
In light of Jytdog's helpful comments, I am once more hoping to update Cleveland Clinic's CMS, Consumer Reports and Leapfrog Group quality and safety ratings based on the most recent data. If other editors agree, I believe we should remove the following paragraphs:

''The USNWR ratings stand in contrast to rankings in models which feature a safety emphasis. In a Kaiser Family Foundation review of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data for hospital acquired conditions in 2014, the Cleveland Clinic received a 8.7 score (1–10 possible, with 10 being the worst), in the bottom 7% of hospitals.[39] In 2012 Consumer Reports rated the Cleveland Clinic 98th among 105 rated hospitals in the State of Ohio for overall safety, with a score of 39 out of 100 possible points; nationwide, the top 10 hospitals in this survey received scores of 68 to 72, and the bottom 10 hospitals received scores of 16–25.[40] Leapfrog Group ranked Cleveland Clinic in 2012 as one of 121 hospitals (of a total of 2618) with a "barely passing" D rating for safety (25 hospitals had F scores), which Leapfrog sees as among the "most hazardous environments for patients in need of care."[41] The different emphasis and specific methodology for the USNWR and for the other ranking systems explains why teaching hospitals collectively score prominently on one system but rarely feature highly on others.[36]

Between 2010 and 2013, the CMS undertook an extensive series of ongoing separate investigations of CCF with at least a dozen inspections and follow-up visits triggered by patient complaints.[42][43] An analysis of Medicare inspection data between 2011 and 2014 found that CCF was one of at least 230 instances where validated serious incidents—dubbed “immediate jeopardy” complaints— led CMS to threaten loss of ability to serve Medicare patients unless the problems were fixed immediately.[42] Due to numerous serious ongoing safety violations, CCF was on payment termination track for a period of 19 months, placing at stake $1B in annual Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement.[42] The citations were reported and analyzed in detail by Modern Healthcare, which posted some of the safety documents.[42][43]

And replace them with these paragaphs:

(Start here)

In 2015 Consumer Reports rated the Cleveland Clinic 60th among 161 rated hospitals in the State of Ohio for overall safety, with a score of 49 out of 100 possible points; nationwide, the top rated hospital this survey received a scores of 79, and the bottom rated hospital received a score of 21. According to 2015 CMS data, Cleveland Clinic has 36% better than national rates for CLABSI (central line infections), 29% better than national rates for avoiding surgical-site infections, 46% better than national rates for avoiding catheter-associated urinary tract infections, 40 % worse than the national rates for avoiding MRSA, and 37% worse than national rates for c.difficile infections. Consumer Report Reference CMS Hospital Compare Site The CMS Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program gives Cleveland Clinic a total HAC score of 7.0000. (Hospitals with a Total HAC Score greater than 6.7500 are subject to a payment reduction.) Consumer Report Reference CMS Hospital Compare Site Cleveland Clinic’s Leapfrog Group Hospital Safety score was C in 2015. Reference Cleveland Clinic rated “better-than-average” to “best” in all CMS Patient Experience categories, including communication about hospital discharge, communication about drug information, doctor-patient communication, nurse-patient communication, pain control, help from hospital staff, room cleanliness, and room quietness. Consumer Report Reference CMS Hospital Compare Site

(End.)

(Please note that the Kaiser Family Foundation rankings were based on prior CMS data, and are no longer up to date. I can't find any more recent Kaiser Family Foundation rankings.)

What do you think? I look forward to your comments. HealthMonitor (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 18:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

As of April 10, it will be a month since the above change to the Cleveland Clinic article was proposed. If no one objects, I would like to post it on April 10 and see what kind of response it gets. HealthMonitor (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not edit the article directly! There is no deadline here.  I will try to get back to this soon. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate it, Jytdog. Thank you. HealthMonitor (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This safety information is way out of date. Fresh new data in this month. See my update. Moirashelly (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think the old information should be completely removed. We don't remove information from articles just because it's old. I would cut it back and add the new info. I would also just remove the table and summarize its contents. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Kendall K-1, the old information was completely removed because it's completely out of date. It would be misleading to leave it there. Here a compromise -- we could move the old information to the History section. As regards the US News and World Report, table, I have seen and updated similar tables on other hospital Wikipedia pages. This one does not seem out of line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moirashelly (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please respond at your Talk page, Moira. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Commenting on substance: Moira you are not correct that older safety data reporting should be removed.  Newer information can be added but the record is relevant. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the CR rating. I couldn't find "60th among 161" in the source but I'll take your word for it. I think all of these rating summaries are way too long; the reader can click through to the ref if they want the details. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I would be up for combining the 2012 CR rating info with the 2015 somehow, and noting the improvement. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Kendall-Kl. In response to your proposal, we could place the data below in the article to replace the incumbent information which is currently inaccurate and out of date. While I can understand that some editors are wary of inserting what might be perceived as promotional material, the information below is fully sourced from impeccably objective third parties. Preventing it from becoming part of this article does not serve Wikipedia's readership, and could be interpreted as overzealous. Here is what I hope someone will be kind enough to do:

Remove the paragraphs below ...

''The USNWR ratings stand in contrast to rankings in models which feature a safety emphasis. In a Kaiser Family Foundation review of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data for hospital acquired conditions in 2014, the Cleveland Clinic received a 8.7 score (1–10 possible, with 10 being the worst), in the bottom 7% of hospitals.[39] In 2012 Consumer Reports rated the Cleveland Clinic 98th among 105 rated hospitals in the State of Ohio for overall safety, with a score of 39 out of 100 possible points; nationwide, the top 10 hospitals in this survey received scores of 68 to 72, and the bottom 10 hospitals received scores of 16–25.[40] Leapfrog Group ranked Cleveland Clinic in 2012 as one of 121 hospitals (of a total of 2618) with a "barely passing" D rating for safety (25 hospitals had F scores), which Leapfrog sees as among the "most hazardous environments for patients in need of care."[41] The different emphasis and specific methodology for the USNWR and for the other ranking systems explains why teaching hospitals collectively score prominently on one system but rarely feature highly on others.[36]

Between 2010 and 2013, the CMS undertook an extensive series of ongoing separate investigations of CCF with at least a dozen inspections and follow-up visits triggered by patient complaints.[42][43] An analysis of Medicare inspection data between 2011 and 2014 found that CCF was one of at least 230 instances where validated serious incidents—dubbed “immediate jeopardy” complaints— led CMS to threaten loss of ability to serve Medicare patients unless the problems were fixed immediately.[42] Due to numerous serious ongoing safety violations, CCF was on payment termination track for a period of 19 months, placing at stake $1B in annual Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement.[42] The citations were reported and analyzed in detail by Modern Healthcare, which posted some of the safety documents.[42][43]

And replace them with these paragaphs:

(Start here)

In 2015 Consumer Reports rated the Cleveland Clinic 60th among 161 rated hospitals in the State of Ohio for overall safety, with a score of 49 out of 100 possible points; nationwide, the top rated hospital this survey received a scores of 79, and the bottom rated hospital received a score of 21. According to 2015 CMS data, Cleveland Clinic has 36% better than national rates for CLABSI (central line infections), 29% better than national rates for avoiding surgical-site infections, 46% better than national rates for avoiding catheter-associated urinary tract infections, 40 % worse than the national rates for avoiding MRSA, and 37% worse than national rates for c.difficile infections. Consumer Report Reference CMS Hospital Compare Site The CMS Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program gives Cleveland Clinic a total HAC score of 7.0000. (Hospitals with a Total HAC Score greater than 6.7500 are subject to a payment reduction.) Consumer Report Reference CMS Hospital Compare Site Cleveland Clinic’s Leapfrog Group Hospital Safety score was C in 2015. Reference Cleveland Clinic rated “better-than-average” to “best” in all CMS Patient Experience categories, including communication about hospital discharge, communication about drug information, doctor-patient communication, nurse-patient communication, pain control, help from hospital staff, room cleanliness, and room quietness. Consumer Report Reference CMS Hospital Compare Site

(End.) I would love to be able to do this myself, but I am abiding by what appears to be the consensus wish that some other editor be the one who actually places it upon the page. HealthMonitor (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not in favor of removing properly sourced historic information about the safety scores. I do think this section is too long and should be cut back but this is not the way to do it. I don't see why you say the historic data is inaccurate, can you explain? Are you saying these numbers are not supported by the source, or that the source is wrong? Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Just as an FYI...
I'm not sure how in flux this article is, but I came across it as a result of trying to clear out the COI requested edit backlog. In particular, the repeated requests from a user with a COI to clear out old data because the new data is more favorable is not appropriate. That is exactly why COI is a problem - Wikipedia is a lagging indicator; not a frontrunner of current news. People should not be coming here to find a hospital - Wikipedia is not a guidebook. If anyone is writing with either of those purposes in mind, there is a problem. Disclosed COI or not, a user whose purpose is solely to monitor their workplace's "presence" on Wikipedia is a single purpose account who is misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. MSJapan (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced list
the following is unsourced. moved here per WP:PRESERVE

The Cleveland Clinic operates eleven northeast Ohio hospitals and has affiliates in Florida, Nevada, Canada and United Arab Emirates:

-- Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Main Campus, Cleveland, Ohio
 * Cleveland Clinic Children's Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio
 * Euclid Hospital, Euclid, Ohio
 * Fairview Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio
 * Hillcrest Hospital, Mayfield Heights, Ohio
 * Richard E. Jacobs Health Center, Avon, Ohio
 * Lakewood Hospital, Lakewood, Ohio
 * Lutheran Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio
 * Marymount Hospital, Garfield Heights, Ohio
 * Medina Hospital, Medina, Ohio
 * South Pointe Hospital, Warrensville Heights, Ohio
 * Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida
 * Cleveland Clinic Florida, West Palm Beach, Florida
 * Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas, Nevada
 * Cleveland Clinic Canada, Toronto, Canada
 * Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
 * Cleveland Clinic Global Solutions, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
 * Cleveland Clinic London, London, United Kingdom (coming soon)


 * I'm also reminded of WP:NOTDIR: 7. Simple listings without context information. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Lakewood hospital has been closed since February, and a new hospital has been opened in Avon. Dan D. Ric (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is another good reason to leave the list out; it becomes outdated almost as soon as it's published. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

History of Cleveland Clinic

 * tldr: I plan to seek a third opinion from someone who will do no more than link to the criticism to be addressed about this content. I am hoping for a link that is about the content, and not criticism about anyone submitting it or about the bureaucratic process for proposing it. I anticipate that this will just be a single link and ought not be any trouble. MSJapan, if you have an objection to my seeking a third opinion about this point, then please speak up.

Please excuse my foolishness and ignorance. There are three users,, Elvey, and SlimVirgin, all of whom are experienced Wikipedians and all of whom make good decisions. They seem to share the view that they have linked to criticism about certain text that is proposed to be added to this article, and I have an opposing view that none of them have ever shared the link to the criticism. Another way to say this is that they agree there is outstanding criticism and that anyone can find it, and I say that I cannot find it, and please help me find it by providing a link to it.

There is some content proposed by user HealthMonitor, a user who at some time has worked for Cleveland Clinic but is not paid to edit this article and obviously not affiliated with their communications. I think the content all right, and can go into Wikipedia mainspace. Elvey and SlimVirgin seem to be in agreement that the content has major flaws. They quit talking here after agreeing that there are flaws, but so far as I know, they never described any particular flaw. As I remember, they forbid the content to be in the article, forbid it being posted here on the talk page, and said that it should be at Talk:Cleveland Clinic/edit requests. Recently MSJapan nominated that page for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Cleveland Clinic/edit requests, and in the deletion discussions others agreed that that page has to be a redirect to this talk page.

Here's the crazy part: Elvey and SlimVirgin seem completely convinced that somewhere, there is criticism of the proposed article content. In Wikipedia, content is not supposed to be prohibited for no reason, and someone is supposed to state a reason why it is flawed. I liked the content. I asked Elvey and SlimVirgin where the criticism is. Elvey says that she already said enough and dropped the discussion. I suppose the hanging presumption is that I have read it and am ignoring it. The problem is that I really have not seen it.

Next, MSJapan comes along, and somehow this user also finds the criticism that I have not seen. I ask this person four times where it is, and the user insists that they read it and that I have read it. I am in the absurd situation of having asked for criticism when it seems like three other very experienced editors have seen it, but will not share it. I have posted messages, emailed them, offered to talk by phone or webcam. I am not opposed to recognizing criticism; I just say that I have not seen it.

There is a separate thread in the discussion which I think is less important, and it is that I am supposed to make an edit request to add content to the article, but I am managing the bureaucratic process incorrectly. Mistakes that have been made include posting text in wrong places and wrong ways, including in the article, on this talk page, and on a sub page. Now with the deletion discussion about the subpage, it seems that all of these options were wrong.

I regret that MSJapan has said, " Creating a new article just to be AfDed is disruptive editing. I think the issue is that you want to add content that you know is no good, and you're going to keep creating a problem until someone gives in and says yes, despite the fact that three people and a COIN discussion said no." I hope this is all a misunderstanding, but I do confirm that the discussion has been shut down three times by people without me getting a link to problems with the text.

I am a Wikipedian and I should be able to add text if I want to do so, unless someone complains about the content. I wish to see the complaints. This entire situation is very strange to me and I can only think that I must be a fool somehow, but please, I would like the link.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  12:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about. Where is this proposed additional material that apparently used to be at Talk:Cleveland Clinic/edit requests? Oh wait, I see it's still there. I'll take a look at it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I made History of Cleveland Clinic.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know what the post means either. The problem here is that a COI editor has been trying to remove negative material. SarahSV (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I re-added all the offending text which was ever deleted. This is what the accused editor added. I thought it was good content. I WP:AGF that past grievances have the same merit now as they did when they were first voiced and when complaining editors deleted this text, but I deny ever seeing the past grievances.
 * If anyone has something to say then feel free to point to standing criticism, make new comments, or mark up the live article.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see what has happened. HealthMonitor, an SPA from the Cleveland Clinic, rewrote the article in October 2015. There were objections and his changes were reverted (COIN discussion). Blue Rasberry supported him and posted HealthMonitor's version in its entirety on the talk page as a requested edit.


 * Blue Rasberry has now created a fork, History of Cleveland Clinic, and added HealthMonitor's article there instead. It seems to be the same text from the "History" section onwards; the lower sections aren't about the history but are now in a history article nevertheless. Compare: HealthMonitor's Cleveland Clinic; Blue Rasberry's History of Cleveland Clinic. SarahSV (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wondered about those non-history sections. I wouldn't call the new article a fork, and I don't think Blue Rasberry is trying to do anything sneaky here. Note that I have cut out a lot of the history from the main article now that there is a separate history article. I did not carefully check that everything I cut was properly presented in the new article, as I thought the new article was simply an expansion of the old. I will try to go back over all that now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Kendall, it's clearly a fork as written, because it's not a history article. It includes a history section, but it's the article that the Cleveland Clinic editor intended for this page. After it was removed, someone summarized its history section for this article. Perhaps some of the rest could be incorporated into this page. The danger is that we violate UNDUE because we don't know which sources and issues are missing. I've seen a lot of criticism of the Cleveland Clinic while clicking on links related to this page. I haven't added anything, because checking that it's accurate, appropriate and up-to-date would involve a lot of work.


 * What's happening here illustrates the problem with COI editing in areas where large amounts of money are at stake. Detailed but biased material is offered; volunteers turn it down because it's obviously not neutral but checking it would absorb a lot of volunteer time; one editor adds it anyway; other volunteers are then forced to deal with it or let the COI text stand. SarahSV (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I deny the following:
 * Creating a fork
 * Failing to acknowledge any criticism
 * Seeing content which is not backed by reliable third-party sources
 * Seeing proof of a paid editor. The user is more likely a rogue editor who would be reprimanded by their employer for posting this content.
 * I disagree with SV on the following points:
 * "clearly a fork"
 * "not a history article"
 * "it's the article that the Cleveland Clinic editor intended for this page"
 * "we violate UNDUE"
 * "What's happening here illustrates the problem with COI editing"
 * "Detailed but biased material is offered"
 * "it's obviously not neutral"
 * "checking it would absorb a lot of volunteer time"
 * The accusations here are excessive. I do not feel like this amount of hostility is fair to either this editor, to me, or appropriate to set the mood for collaboration in general. In all of this conversation among all of the complaining editors I deny ever having seen direct criticism on any point. I asked everyone who ever complained to show any problem and in response have been shut down and accused of being disruptive.
 * The string of ambiguous accusations and personal attacks are not advancing the conversation. There is a lot of text here, but a good place to start with criticism is for someone to point to 1-2 points that are problematic.
 * I confirm that typical COI editors are crazy and harmful to Wikipedia. I have seen thousands of submissions of bad COI content, and this submission is not typical. The content submitted here is highly unusual for being backed by citations to third-party reliable sources. It merits something more than blunt dismissal and hostility.
 * I agree with SV on the following points:
 * "we don't know which sources and issues are missing"
 * "I've seen a lot of criticism of the Cleveland Clinic while clicking on links..."
 * "large amounts of money are at stake"
 *  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"Reputation" edits
Hello, I am Eileen Sheil, executive director of corporate communications at Cleveland Clinic. I created an account to help update my employer's article to keep it current and balanced. The first place I would like you to consider is Reputation. Currently, this portion of the article is outdated and incomplete. Some examples:
 * The article lists 2012 and 2015 ratings from Consumer Reports, but it does not have the most recent rating.
 * The paragraph on CMS investigations in the 2010s fails to include recent detail, such as CMS giving Cleveland Clinic four stars on its Overall Hospital Quality Star Rating program.
 * The article does not include the latest Leapfrog Group ratings.
 * The table showing specialty rankings from U.S. News & World Report includes an incorrect ranking for neurology and neurosurgery, and it does not include pediatric specialty rankings.

I ask that editors consider reviewing my suggested draft and move it into the article if everything is deemed appropriate.

, Cleveland Clinic was ranked the No. 2 hospital in the United States, the No. 1 hospital in cardiology and heart surgery for 22 years, and the No. 1 hospital in Ohio by U.S. News & World Report, ranking nationally in 14 adult and 9 pediatric specialties, including:



In 2012, Consumer Reports rated the Cleveland Clinic 98th among 105 rated hospitals in the Ohio for overall safety. In 2015 the rating was 60th among 161 hospitals, with a score of 49 out of 100 possible points. (Nationwide, the top and bottom scores were 79 and 21.) In 2017, Consumer Reports rated Cleveland Clinic No. 88 out of 116 Ohio hospitals rated for overall safety, with a score of 53 out of 100.

Between 2010 and 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) undertook an extensive series of investigations into the Cleveland Clinic, with at least a dozen inspections and follow-up visits triggered by patient complaints. An analysis of Medicare inspection data between 2011 and 2014 found that the Cleveland Clinic was one of at least 230 instances where validated serious incidents—dubbed “immediate jeopardy” complaints— led CMS to threaten loss of ability to serve Medicare patients unless the problems were fixed immediately. Due to numerous serious ongoing safety violations, the Cleveland Clinic was on payment termination track for 19 months, placing at stake $1 billion in annual Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. In July 2010, The Plain Dealer reported that Cleveland Clinic corrected all of the violations identified from the CMS inspection in January that year. In 2016, CMS gave Cleveland Clinic four out of five stars on its Overall Hospital Quality Star Rating program.

Cleveland Clinic is accredited by The Joint Commission, a nonprofit that accredits health care organizations and programs, and maintains disease-specific certifications for comprehensive stroke care and ventricular assist device. Organizations accredited through The Joint Commission meet or exceed Medicare and Medicaid requirements. In 2014, Cleveland Clinic received The Joint Commission's first Primary Care Medical Home Certification for Hospitals.

In a Kaiser Family Foundation review of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data for hospital acquired conditions in 2014, the Cleveland Clinic received a 8.375 score (1–10 possible, with 10 being the worst). Cleveland Clinic actively participated in The Joint Commission improvement initiatives for reducing clostridium difficile infections, surgical site infections and venous thromboembolism prevention.

Leapfrog Group gave Cleveland Clinic a D rating for safety in 2012, a grade that increased to an A by fall 2016. Cleveland Clinic's Leapfrog Group Safety Score in spring 2017 was A. Eight Cleveland Clinic facilities received an A grade in spring 2017; a ninth received a B.

Cleveland Clinic publishes its recent quality and safety data in Outcomes Books posted on its website. The hospital was one of the first in the country to provide physician ratings from patients on its website.

Cleveland Clinic was a 2016 Acclaim Award honoree by American Medical Group Association.

== Reputation == , Cleveland Clinic was ranked the No. 2 hospital in the United States, the No. 1 hospital in cardiology and heart surgery for 22 years, and the No. 1 hospital in Ohio by U.S. News & World Report, ranking nationally in 14 adult and 9 pediatric specialties, including:



In 2012, Consumer Reports rated the Cleveland Clinic 98th among 105 rated hospitals in the Ohio for overall safety. In 2015 the rating was 60th among 161 hospitals, with a score of 49 out of 100 possible points. (Nationwide, the top and bottom scores were 79 and 21.) In 2017, Consumer Reports rated Cleveland Clinic No. 88 out of 116 Ohio hospitals rated for overall safety, with a score of 53 out of 100.

Between 2010 and 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) undertook an extensive series of investigations into the Cleveland Clinic, with at least a dozen inspections and follow-up visits triggered by patient complaints. An analysis of Medicare inspection data between 2011 and 2014 found that the Cleveland Clinic was one of at least 230 instances where validated serious incidents—dubbed “immediate jeopardy” complaints— led CMS to threaten loss of ability to serve Medicare patients unless the problems were fixed immediately. Due to numerous serious ongoing safety violations, the Cleveland Clinic was on payment termination track for 19 months, placing at stake $1 billion in annual Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. In July 2010, The Plain Dealer reported that Cleveland Clinic corrected all of the violations identified from the CMS inspection in January that year. In 2016, CMS gave Cleveland Clinic four out of five stars on its Overall Hospital Quality Star Rating program.

Cleveland Clinic is accredited by The Joint Commission, a nonprofit that accredits health care organizations and programs, and maintains disease-specific certifications for comprehensive stroke care and ventricular assist device. Organizations accredited through The Joint Commission meet or exceed Medicare and Medicaid requirements. In 2014, Cleveland Clinic received The Joint Commission's first Primary Care Medical Home Certification for Hospitals.

In a Kaiser Family Foundation review of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data for hospital acquired conditions in 2014, the Cleveland Clinic received a 8.375 score (1–10 possible, with 10 being the worst). Cleveland Clinic actively participated in The Joint Commission improvement initiatives for reducing clostridium difficile infections, surgical site infections and venous thromboembolism prevention.

Leapfrog Group gave Cleveland Clinic a D rating for safety in 2012, a grade that increased to an A by fall 2016. Cleveland Clinic's Leapfrog Group Safety Score in spring 2017 was A. Eight Cleveland Clinic facilities received an A grade in spring 2017; a ninth received a B.

Cleveland Clinic publishes its recent quality and safety data in Outcomes Books posted on its website. The hospital was one of the first in the country to provide physician ratings from patients on its website.

Cleveland Clinic was a 2016 Acclaim Award honoree by American Medical Group Association.

It is worth noting that others have directly edited this article on behalf of Cleveland Clinic in the past. My team has taken steps to communicate to Cleveland Clinic employees that this is not appropriate, and I am currently the only one here in an official authorized capacity. I will keep my suggestions on Talk pages and avoid direct editing. Thank you, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that we have had a lot of trouble with COI editing on this and related articles, and although I will do my best to assume good faith, many of us are suspicious of any "official" attempts to edit this article. Maybe you could track down User talk:139.137.128.61 and his many socks and ask him not to remove maintenance templates, as he did at Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute. I am not personally inclined to help with your edit request but maybe someone else will be. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

On COI editing
Let me expand a bit on what I said in the previous section. Wikipedia is a collaborative online encyclopedia. We welcome contributions from anyone who comes here in good faith with the intent of improving the encyclopedia. There are many ways in which one can contribute:
 * Copy edit, fix typos, grammar, spelling etc.
 * Add citations to reliable sources where requested or required
 * Remove promotional crap left over from COI editors
 * Add new material to improve the readers' understanding of the subject

We especially need help with removing promotional crap. There is a lot of it, inserted by your colleagues. Just today User:Jytdog removed a bit more. A few days ago I came across the Lerner Institute article, which was a horrible mess, and several editors collaborated to fix it. I didn't see you helping with that.

You, as an employee of the Clinic, are in a great position to dig up material that the rest of us have no access to. For example you could contribute photos of the facilities or the people. As executive director of corporate communications you could certainly arrange to have photos re-licensed so we can use them.

Yet of all the ways you could contribute, you come here asking the rest of us to help you improve the reputation of the Clinic. It is obvious to me that you are not here to help us build an encyclopedia. I'm going out on a limb here and possibly violating the WP:AGF guideline, but I think most editors will agree with me. Show me that you are here to help us, not just the Clinic, and then I will be glad to work with you. Until then, no. Good luck. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Per this statement, I will straight up decline this request. Knowing now that several socks have made COI edits in promotional tone, and now seeing this one makes it seem promotional in nature as well. If you would like to submit another request with a revised version of your request that does not appear promotional, you may do so. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@User:ClevelandClinicES, I respect that you now are trying to follow Wikipedia policy. A few suggestions: These suggestions don't guarantee that you'll get the changes you want. To be blunt, persistent undisclosed COI editing has left Cleveland Clinic with something of a bad rep (as you have seen from the responses above). It takes time to build trust after something like that happens. The best way to do that is by negotiating incremental changes and demonstrating by your actions that you're willing to abide by the site's policies. You'll be most successful if you're the tortoise, not the hare. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Request specific, incremental edits of the form "please change X to Y" rather than large blocks of text to be replaced wholesale. Editors will almost never adopt such large revisions. Instead they will want to parse it out to see what has been changed. (This is especially true when there is a history of COI editing as in the present case.) Most people won't bother, meaning that the suggestion will not be acted on. See WP:COIRESPONSE as well as the section that follows.
 * Prioritize. COI editors often request large numbers of edits. Similar to the above, when an editor sees a dozen or more requested changes they're likely to throw up their hands and walk away rather than sift through all of them. Think about what are the most important changes. Then propose a limited number of your highest-priority edits. I would recommend not more than three or four changes. If this goes well, and you are able to build trust with the editing community, you can gradually propose more changes. Be careful not to overdo it -- see Ghostwriting, at "Excessive requests."

Hello, Kendall-K1, jd22292 and Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. Thanks for responding. I am new to Wikipedia and your guidance is very helpful. I understand your concerns with previous COI editing and I can assure that it’s my priority to stop COI editing from hospital staff. My team has notified Cleveland Clinic employees that making edits to Cleveland Clinic-related articles is not appropriate, and we are searching for the IP editor mentioned above. My initial edit request was to provide complete and updated information for Reputation knowing its importance. As suggested, I will come back with revised requests, more along the lines of "please change X to Y". Meanwhile, @jd22292, was there anything in particular you saw that was too promotional? I'm here to work with the Wikipedia community and appreciate any suggestions you have. My goal over time is to review each section and propose edit requests to make this article a valuable resource for readers. I understand it will take time to earn your trust, but I’m committed to working with the community and following your process. Again, I appreciate your recommendations thus far. Thank you.ClevelandClinicES (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The "Reputation" section is a sore spot, because it's been a bitter battleground in the past. I suggest you read the talk page archives so you can understand why. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Kendall-K1, thank you again for responding. I took some time to review the archives as you suggested, and I understand your concerns and why this is a sore spot for editors.


 * I know that all I can give you right now is my word, and I appreciate that it may not mean much given the history with the page, but I know if you’ll give me some time, I’ll show you that I’m genuinely committed to following the site’s rules and respecting the editor community.


 * To start, I’ve prepared a new, more simplified request that is along the lines of "please change X to Y", as Shock Brigade Harvester Boris suggested. I’m more than happy to start small and work gradually to propose more changes, so I hope this next request will be a step in the right direction. I will post the new request shortly for you and other editors to review.


 * Again, thank you for your help so far. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

U.S. News & World Report Rankings Table
Hello, Since editors suggested I take a "please change X to Y" approach to proposed edits to this page, I'm posting this new edit request for page watchers to consider updating the table of U.S. News & World Report rankings in Reputation.

The current table on the article is factually incorrect per the current listings :
 * Cancer is 7, not 8
 * ENT is 16, not 12
 * Geriatrics is 5, not 8
 * Gynecology is 5, not 3
 * Neurology and neurosurgery is 6, not 8
 * Ophthalmology is 9, not 8
 * Rheumatology is 2, not 3
 * Urology is now 1, not 2

The table I propose fixes the above and adds a column listing Cleveland Clinic's pediatric specialty rankings, as these are ranked separately than adult specialties. Can any editors consider replacing the existing table with the following?

I am executive director of corporate communications at Cleveland Clinic, and I have disclosed and discussed my conflict of interest above. I understand previous COI editing by others at Cleveland Clinic has caused problems among the Wikipedia community. I'm committed to working with the community and following your process. Thank you. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've said it before and I'll say it again: This editor is not here to help us build an encyclopedia. If she were, she would start on some other part of the article. Her only interest seems to be improving the Clinic's reputation, not improving this article. See WP:NOTHERE. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cleveland Clinic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319041238/http://www.leapfroggroup.org/media/file/CRHospitalSafetyRatings.pdf to http://www.leapfroggroup.org/media/file/CRHospitalSafetyRatings.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120903201256/http://my.clevelandclinic.org/default.aspx to http://my.clevelandclinic.org/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Finances
Hello, Since editors suggested I consider improvements to sections other than Reputation, I come here asking editors watching this page to consider updating Finances. This section is one sentence long, and the information therewithin is six years old. It seems like an appropriate time for that to be updated. These stories from The Plain Dealer and Crain's Cleveland Business highlighted Cleveland Clinic's 2016 financial performance. Can these sources be used to replace the existing sentence with the following?

Cleveland Clinic posted $243 million operating income on $8 billion revenue in 2016. Operating income fell about 50 percent from 2015, which the hospital said was due to shrinking reimbursements and rising drug costs.

Cleveland Clinic posted $243 million operating income on $8 billion revenue in 2016. Operating income fell about 50 percent from 2015, which the hospital said was due to shrinking reimbursements and rising drug costs.

I am executive director of corporate communications at Cleveland Clinic, and I have disclosed and discussed my conflict of interest above. I understand previous COI editing by others at Cleveland Clinic has caused problems among the Wikipedia community. I'm committed to working with the community and following your process. Thank you. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It would be great to have encyclopedic content instead of a datapoint. Can you please provide more... breadth and context? While we are doing finances it would be great to deal with executive salaries.  thx Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Jytdog, thanks for your feedback. I am finding it a challenge to offer helpful updates to contribute to this article. Since it was requested that I suggest "specific, incremental edits of the form 'please change X to Y' rather than large blocks of text to be replaced wholesale", I was aiming for just that by asking editors to update the information in the Finances section. Do I understand correctly that editors want to see more detail?


 * If that's the case, to help prevent more requests that don't meet with what editors are looking for, how about I post a list of things I can work on based on what I see in good quality articles about other major hospitals and health care systems? If I benchmark against those pages, does that sound like a good way to look at what I might be able to contribute here?


 * Finally, to your question: details of Cleveland Clinic executive salaries are publicly available, but is it standard practice to include that in hospital Wikipedia articles?


 * Thank you. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Most articles in Wikipedia about hospitals are terrible and are obviously the product of undisclosed paid editing by their subject's PR people. So no, they are not good models. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Jytdog, I reviewed some more hospital articles (mainly other hospitals appearing near the top of the Best Hospitals list by U.S. News & World Report), and I see what you mean when you say they are not good models. It would help to know what a high-quality article about a hospital might look like, so I can help with resources to get this article to that point. Are there specific things that editors watching this page would like to include that I might help with? I'm working on images but can surely assist with other details too.
 * Thank you. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

New photos request
Hello, Wikipedians. I've recently uploaded two new photos to Wikimedia Commons that can be used in this article. The first is a new image of the Taussig Cancer Center to replace the existing photo: File:Taussig Cancer Center.png. The second is an image of the Lerner Research Institute: File:Lerner Research Institute.png. It might work best alongside the related content in the Research and education section.

As Cleveland Clinic’s representative on Wikipedia, I have a financial conflict of interest and will not make changes to the article myself. Is there anyone who could add these photos to this article? I'm happy to answer any questions on this. Thanks, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Kendall-K1. Thank you for adding the Lerner Research Institute photo to this article. In case you overlooked this message, there is also a new photo of the Taussig Cancer Center that can be added if you'd like: File:Taussig Cancer Center.png. I'm happy to answer any questions on this. Thanks, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, following your request here and cross posted to WikiProject Hospitals I replaced the older, smaller image with the new higher resolution one you shared. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Blue Rasberry, Thank you for adding the new Taussig Cancer Center photo to this article. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

History
Hello, I have prepared citations for some unsourced detail in History, as per WP:VERIFY, in addition to a couple of other fixes. Can editors review the following and add my suggested edits to the live article?
 * I’ve added a citation for the fire death toll. I used a different source than you suggested. Billhpike (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"The practice was purchased by his two assistants, Frank E. Bunts and George Washington Crile".
 * References:
 * Smith, Dale C. (1986). "Modern surgery and the development of group practice in the midwest". Caduceus: A Museum Quarterly for the Health Sciences. Department of Medical Humanities. II (3): 27. Retrieved 14 November 2017.
 * John D. Clough, M.D., ed. (2004). To Act as a Unit: The Story of the Cleveland Clinic (PDF). Cleveland, Ohio: The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. p. 21. ISBN 9781596240001. Retrieved 14 November 2017.

While I know Wikipedia does not prefer primary sources, I figured I would share the book To Act as a Unit in case editors felt it could be appropriate in giving historical context.

The entire middle of the first paragraph contains no inline citations. I assume that's because the detail is likely found in the source referenced at the end of the paragraph. However, I feel the article should at least carry a citation on the sentence where it says 123 people died in the fire.
 * Reference:
 * John Stark Bellamy, II (2009). Cleveland's Greatest Disasters!: 16 Tragic True Tales of Death and Destruction. Gray & Company. pp. 87–104. ISBN 9781598510584. Retrieved 14 November 2017.

There is a typo in the second sentence. The name is Martha Holden Jennings, not Martha Holding Jennings.

Also, the unsourced sentence on William S. Kiser contains a factual inaccuracy. Kiser was chairman of the board from 1977–1989.
 * Reference:
 * John A. Kastor (2005). Specialty Care in the Era of Managed Care: Cleveland Clinic Versus University Hospitals of Cleveland. JHU Press. p. 236. ISBN 9780801881749. Retrieved 14 November 2017.

As Cleveland Clinic’s representative on Wikipedia, I have a financial conflict of interest and will not make changes to the article myself. Is there anyone who could make these edits? I'm happy to answer any questions on this. Thanks, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ The references have been added and the 2 typos have been corrected. Regards,   Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   07:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Spintendo. Thank you for adding the sources and fixing typos. I'm curious why you deleted the External links section. I looked at the Wikipedia pages for the other hospitals listed in U.S. News & World Report's Best Hospitals list and each of those pages includes External links (Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital and University of California, San Francisco Medical Center). ClevelandClinicES (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Outdated "Finances"
Hello, I would like to revisit a discussion I started in August. Do editors have any ideas on how to better update the Finances section of this article? As I mentioned above, this section is one sentence long, and the information there within is six years old. I previously put forward a proposal to update with the most-recent details, but my request was declined. The reviewer said the section should be developed to show more "breadth and context". What sort of information should be included? I'd be happy to look into details to add, but I'm wary of putting together a lot of information if it might not be appropriate.

Conversely, if the existing Finances is not detailed enough and simply updating to the current figures is not appropriate (per my previous request), would it be better to simply remove from the article altogether? Right now, all that section conveys is six-year-old financial information, which is surely not of any benefit to readers.

If editors have changed their minds, and would be ok with updating these details while we figure out how to expand the section, here is the wording I proposed previously:

Cleveland Clinic posted $243 million operating income on $8 billion revenue in 2016. Operating income fell about 50 percent from 2015, which the hospital said was due to shrinking reimbursements and rising drug costs.

Cleveland Clinic posted $243 million operating income on $8 billion revenue in 2016. Operating income fell about 50 percent from 2015, which the hospital said was due to shrinking reimbursements and rising drug costs.

As Cleveland Clinic’s representative on Wikipedia, I have a financial conflict of interest and will not make changes to the article myself. Is there anyone who could consider these edits? Thanks, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

✅   Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   19:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, Spintendo. Thank you for adding the more-recent financial information. Soon after your edit, SlimVirgin reinstated the 2011 financial information. Now that Finances includes financials from 2011 and 2016, I wonder what's the best way to develop this further. Should we add financials to fill in the years between (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015)? (And, of course, the next question is: Why start with 2011? Where do we begin?) It makes sense to me to include 2016 financials in the article, as they are the most recently reported. While including the 2011 data is unclear to me, and most likely not beneficial to readers without explaining the context, I want to understand better why it is retained so I can help further with providing appropriate information. I look forward to reading what the both of you and others think about this. Thanks, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I restored the edit because it says that, in 2011, Cleveland Clinic was the second top-grossing hospital in the United States, with total patient revenue of $9.14 billion. That seems interesting and probably not the kind of thing that should be removed at the request of the Cleveland Clinic, at least not without further explanation (e.g. that it's wrong, or not that interesting because ...). SarahSV (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, SarahSV. Sounds good. Thanks for the explanation! ClevelandClinicES (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

General updates
Hello, I have prepared a series of copy edits to help improve this encyclopedia article. There's nothing major here, mainly a few edits to remove redundancies or improve the writing.

Introduction
 * In the lead sentence, "located" is not necessary.
 * The Cleveland Clinic is a multispecialty academic hospital located in Cleveland, Ohio, that is owned and operated by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, an Ohio nonprofit corporation established in 1921.
 * In the second sentence, the word "also" is redundant because it follows the phrase "in addition to".
 * In addition to its flagship hospital in Cleveland, the Cleveland Clinic also operates affiliated facilities in Florida, Nevada, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates.

History: Growth of specialization
 * The third sentence says a new research building "went up in 1974". Rather than "went up", can this be changed to say "was built" or "was constructed" to maintain encyclopedic tone?
 * The final sentence of this subsection says, "Completed in 1985, the Century Project including a 14-story outpatient building (now known as the Crile Building) designed by architect Cesar Pelli." This should say "includes," not "including".

Locations
 * To make the following sentence more active, delete the word "was":
 * "A location in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates—Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi— was opened in 2015."

As Cleveland Clinic’s representative on Wikipedia, I have a financial conflict of interest and will not make changes to the article myself. Is there anyone who could consider these edits?

In recent months, we have updated Finances, added sources to History and new photos of the Taussig Cancer Center and Lerner Research Institute. I have asked editors if they had any ideas for further developing Finances, but I have not heard any specifics suggestions. Unless editors see any other areas that might require updates, I will begin putting together a new edit request to update the outdated U.S. News & World Report rankings. Thank you, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply to 'General Updates' edit request 25-JAN-2018
All requested changes implemented. Regards,   Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   18:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, Spintendo. Thank you for making those copy changes. I will be posting another edit request soon to address the outdated U.S. News & World Report rankings. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

U.S. News & World Report rankings table
Hello, Since we have worked together to update this article, and I have yet to hear from editors of other areas they would like to see developed, I am again requesting updates to the existing U.S. News & World Report rankings table in Reputation.

The current table on the article is factually incorrect per the current listings :
 * Cancer is 7, not 8
 * ENT is 16, not 12
 * Geriatrics is 5, not 8
 * Gynecology is 5, not 3
 * Neurology and neurosurgery is 6, not 8
 * Ophthalmology is 9, not 8
 * Rheumatology is 2, not 3
 * Urology is now 1, not 2

The table I propose fixes the above and adds a column listing Cleveland Clinic's pediatric specialty rankings, as these are ranked separately than adult specialties. Can any editors consider replacing the existing table with the following?

As Cleveland Clinic’s representative on Wikipedia, I have a financial conflict of interest and will not make changes to the article myself. Is there anyone who could consider these edits? Thank you, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should just remove this table. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Things that need continual updating are not well suited to Wikipedia. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, Kendall-K1, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris and others. Thanks for the input so far. If it helps inform any decisions, I looked at the Wikipedia articles for the nine other hospitals in U.S. News & World Report's Top 10. Of those, six of the articles either listed the hospitals' specialty rankings or contained a table: Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins Hospital, UCSF Medical Center, Michigan Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, and Stanford Health Care. Three did not: Massachusetts General Hospital, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, and Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.


 * How should this be approached to be consistent across articles? If a table is not the right way to go, would a listing of specialties that are ranked in the top ten be reasonable? For example: Cleveland Clinic is ranked in the top ten for the following specialties: cancer; cardiology and heart surgery; diabetes and endocrinology; gastroenterology and GI surgery; geriatrics; gynecology; nephrology; neurology and neurosurgery; ophthalmology; orthopedics; pulmonology; rheumatology; and urology. That would tend to require less updating over time, since hospitals don't tend to have dramatic rankings changes from year-to-year, and if they did, surely it would be noteworthy to mention. Thank you. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We should not be looking to other hospital articles for guidance. As Jytdog said, "Most articles in Wikipedia about hospitals are terrible and are obviously the product of undisclosed paid editing by their subject's PR people. So no, they are not good models." I think it would be reasonable to try to find a summary of the rankings that we can cite from RS, rather than try to summarize them ourselves. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, Kendall-K1. Based on your last reply, I drafted a paragraph that summarizes coverage in reliable sources The Plain Dealer, Fortune, and Akron Beacon Journal. Does this work?



U.S. News & World Report ranked Cleveland Clinic No. 2 on its list of Best Hospitals 2017-2018 and No. 1 for cardiology and heart surgery. Ten of the hospital's specialties ranked in the top five across the country: cardiology and heart surgery, diabetes and endocrinology, gastroenterology and GI surgery, geriatrics, gynecology, nephrology, orthopedics, pulmonology; rheumatology; and urology. Nine pediatric specialties were ranked in the top 50.



U.S. News & World Report ranked Cleveland Clinic No. 2 on its list of Best Hospitals 2017-2018 and No. 1 for cardiology and heart surgery. Ten of the hospital's specialties ranked in the top five across the country: cardiology and heart surgery, diabetes and endocrinology, gastroenterology and GI surgery, geriatrics, gynecology, nephrology, orthopedics, pulmonology; rheumatology; and urology. Nine pediatric specialties were ranked in the top 50.


 * Would you consider these edits? Thanks, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I would object to this. The Cleveland Clinic can't write the Cleveland Clinic article for Wikipedia. The table is clear enough. SarahSV (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌ Wholeheartedly agree with SarahSV. Neutrality is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. We cannot accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative (as the old song goes). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, SarahSV. Thank you for reviewing this proposal and updating the table with the current rankings.
 * Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, I think you might have misinterpreted this request as it was intended only to update the US News and World rankings and did not otherwise aim to change the section, so no critical details would be lost. It seems that Sarah SV has made the edits that are considered most appropriate for now, so I'll consider my request answered. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing Etiquette
I think it would go a long way if we all agree to some basic editing etiquette here. Chiefly, I would like to propose no significant changes should be made by any user unilaterally or any threats be issued by moderators to users who wish to participate in editing. This would include addition or removal of content and flags. Minor changes to formatting that don't change content are fine. Mutual respect goes a long way, and if we can have a civilized discussion about our ideas, everyone's contribution can be included in this article and we can ensure it is the most reliable source of information and facts regarding Cleveland Clinic Wikiuser5991 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that you editing from the 206 IP address? Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Reputation (section)
This section has been the subject of a great deal of discussion here. If you would like to join the discussion, please do so. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. , It looks like we have 3+ users, Kendall-K1, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris and others, who think this section is avertorialesque and the table needs to be removed. Yet it's still here. A neutral, prose presentation of the good and bad reviews, together, is a must, and should make the section adhere to the neutrality policy. The section is an advertisement. The first half of the section is glowing reports from USNWR of 6 years ago, yet most reports of the place (at the end of the section, hidden below a huge chart) are negative. Equal prominence to each is appropriate, isn't it, SlimVirgin et. al.? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I had not removed the table because it didn't seem we had consensus on what, if anything, to replace it with. Maybe you could come up with something? I would still be in favor of removing the table. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't see a problem with the table. I've made it shorter so that it takes up less space, in case that's the issue. SarahSV (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * An improvement - it looks better now, even on a narrow display. I'll give it a shot, K1. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to remove the table, but it won't bother me too much if there's a consensus to keep it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Revert
Apropos your partial revert, SarahSV - I made the change intentionally. The edit summary suggests you reverted me as if you think I made a mistake. I don't believe I did. The reference makes it clear that it's the sum of points assigned to each the individual specialty rankings that determines the Honor Roll score. Please check for yourself. I edited the text to inform the reader of that. So my edit is more informative than the previous wording, and the same length. And the text was moved so that it is before the reference that backs it up. Please consider reverting or helping me understand why if you still prefer the article with your partial revert.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure that the ranking was based only on the information in our table. We list 16 areas. The source says:


 * "U.S. News ranks hospital performance in 16 areas of complex specialty care and also rates hospitals in nine bellwether procedures and conditions such as heart bypass, hip and knee replacement, heart failure and lung cancer surgery. The Best Hospitals Honor Roll takes both the specialty rankings and the procedure and condition ratings into account. Hospitals received points if they were nationally ranked in one of the 16 specialties – the more specialties and the higher their rank, the more points they got – and also if they were rated "high performing" in the nine procedures and conditions. The top 20 point-getters made up the Honor Roll, which has a maximum total of 480 points."


 * SarahSV (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to the details. You're right, its not just the 16. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * USNWR says:


 * "The national Best Hospitals and Best Children's Hospitals rankings, for example, are meant to be used as guidance when life is in the balance or an uncommon condition or procedure is involved. Most patients, thankfully, will not need to consult them."


 * My emphasis. So why do we give 'em such prominence? Any reason, SarahSV? I think we should remove it, even more so after reading that. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Safety and other issues
Full disclosure: I have a nonfinancial conflict of interest in regards to Cleveland Clinic. With that said, I believe there is a disproportionate emphasis on past safety issues in this subsection. Although I believe this information should be retained, I also think there needs to be more emphasis on how these concerns were addressed by Cleveland Clinic and what the safety ratings are today. At the moment this is only a short mention of more recent safety data as opposed to the detailed past safety issues. Finally, I think this would the appropriate section to list some major breakthroughs that occurred at Cleveland Clinic (in a concise, non-editorialized fashion). Thoughts? Wikiuser5991 (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would certainly like to see a section on major breakthroughs. SarahSV (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not the website for the clinic. We do not erase history. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting we erase anything; I am only suggesting we add more information about recent safety ratings that are demonstrably better than the older ratings. Without this added detail, this section is simply misleading, as it suggest the Clinic is still suffering from safety concerns. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * also please do see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hospitals, which I just implemented here. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The revised Reputation section exacerbates the issue I mentioned. I am fine with removing the specialty rankings table, but I strongly believe there should be detailed information about more recent safety information (what little there was present in the previous version has been completely removed). Additionally, I think the U.S. News rankings are widely used in healthcare and are based on objective metrics more so than general reputation. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , you're welcome to write up a draft section on a user page for other editors to consider. I'd have no objection to seeing the safety paragraphs updated if you have good sources. SarahSV (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I’ll post a draft here within the week. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Table
, first, there is no consensus to remove the table. Second, that wasn't all you removed. You and Jytdog have decimated the reputation section, and by no stretch of the imagination can you call what remains neutral. SarahSV (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with SarahSV here. Large-scale unilateral changes should be heavily discouraged by everyone until an actual consensus has been reached. I have restored the original version until this is the case.Wikiuser5991 (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please read the opening statement of the RfC linked above, and the close of the RfC, and let me know how you see that any of USN&W Report, Consumer Reports, or Leapfrog are government agencies. That RfC was started by the paid editor working on this article and is directly relevant to this article; if you disagree with that, please let me know, and if so, in what way. Very happy to have a discussion based on the RfC. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That RfC is not valid. Very few people responded; it isn't clear what the consensus is; it was a non-admin close of an issue that affects a lot of articles; and even though it was prompted by this article, so far as I can see no one on this page was informed of it. The first I saw of it was in an edit summary.


 * If you want to remove the table and other ratings, please hold an RfC on this talk page, preferably one with a question about each of the ratings. SarahSV (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely agreed. Additionally, I would like to stress that leaving the Reputation in its current state is grossly negatively biased. The original (longer) version (even without the table) presented more balanced information and should be restored until consensus is reached on this Talk Page. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SlimVirgin, You are free to ask the closer to change their close, and if that fails, to challenge the close at AN. Until you do, that is the close. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't be legalistic about this. An RfC is opened about the reputation section by the executive director of corporate communications at Cleveland Clinic, and you don't mention it to us? And this is what she asked: "What should the established standard be for how ratings and rankings are included on hospital Wikipedia articles?" Not keep or remove the table.
 * , would you consider undoing your close of that RfC? The consensus is unclear; not enough people were alerted to it; and most editors here didn't know it was happening either. We need an RfC with clear questions for each of the rankings; not "let's have a conversation". SarahSV (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice framing. We have process for good reason, as you know. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Btw, i was made aware of the RfC via Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_113. Yes it would have better had i or any other participants there, had noted it here. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just looked at that editors' contribs, and they also posted at WP:Companies and WP:health&fitness. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, SV, I won't. The RFC was advertised well-enough and the discussion was enough one-sided, when weighed through the lens of policy.I have left an explicit provision of per-se-inclusion by local talk-page discussion.As to whether the RFC relates to your dispute, I decline to comment, due to a lack of editorial time but at a glance, they do seem to be related. Best, &#x222F; WBG converse 06:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Boosterism
Here are a few examples of boosterism that were added to the article. Attempts to revert these additions have failed, so I'm going to restore the tag and maybe we can discuss these.


 * 1) "The Cleveland Clinic is nationally recognized as one of the top medical centers in the United States, particularly in technological and management systems and in the treatment of cardiovascular disease." This was changed to "The Cleveland Clinic is recognized as one of the top medical centers in the world, particularly in technological and management systems and in the treatment of cardiovascular disease." This change is not supported by the cited sources.
 * 2) Addition of "older" to "ratings stand in contrast to older rankings that feature a safety emphasis." This is an attempt to discredit these "older" ratings.
 * 3) Addition of "Another report by Consumer Reports in 2011 noted, however, that...". This is wp:synth. "However" is listed at MOS:OPED.

Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * , these are minor issues, and I've fixed them. They can't have been the reason for this edit of yours, which removed most of the reputation section. Please explain what that edit was about. SarahSV (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct, that edit had nothing to do with the three points listed above. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * These hardly consider academic boosterism, with maybe exception to the first point (which was fixed). Point 2 is not valid in my opinion. The rankings that cite safety issues are indeed older. Perhaps we could use another word like "past." Without this modifier, it suggests that current safety ratings are poor which is false. Point 3 is not valid either. It is not balanced to have information about hospital safety without providing context; in this case, it has been documented that teaching hospitals have lower safety ratings in general. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)