Talk:Medication errors in the Emergency Department

Note
I think you do a great job at introducing your topic. The structure of your page is very easy to follow and is in a clear logical order; from overview to the types of errors to specific drug errors to the effects of these errors and how they can be reduced. Together, all of these themes once completed will provide readers with a great introduction to medication errors. I think it would be beneficial for you to use different citations instead of using the same one over and over by citing the references used in the literature review that you obtained much of this information from. With that, just be careful in making sure that you check each reference individually so to make sure that the sources are of good quality. Overall, your topic of choice is very interesting and you are off to a great start. Your outline is especially good and will almost write itself.

___ Hi Alexa, This draft offers a strong first effort at assembling this article, so good work! I think the main consideration right now would be to make sure the claims made are all backed up by source material and that the tone is entirely neutral. Given your experience/understanding of the ED environment, you will have obvious insight--just make sure it is coming from a source. For example, in this passage: "The ED creates a riskier environment than other areas of the hospital due to medical practitioners not knowing the patient as well as they know longer term hospital patients. The environment of the ED is much more fast-paced than inpatient units with nurses, pharmacists and physicians moving around quickly between different patients. It is unpredictable and creates a higher risk of miscommunication, misgiving medications and failure to acknowledge a medication was given in error in adequate time" all of these things are likely true, but it reads as opinion the way it is phrased. We can talk more about this if you would like--I am happy to offer some suggestions for rephrasing. Regarding the rest of your outline plan, it looks good! Amyc29 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Alexa's Peer Review - Daniel
Hey Alexa! I think you did a great job introducing your topic. The beginning was concise but informative and enabled the reader to feel as if they have some level of acquired context/background. I believe that starting off wiht a statistic always helps engage the reader as well as emphasized the relevance of the topic. In terms of language generally the sentences were right to the point and allowed for easy following of each given topic. As nelson mentioned, your contents which correspond with the topics and subtopics of the article make logical sense and give clear direction as to where this paper is headed. One adjustment that could be made want in terms of language could be maybe attempting to create a slightly more neutral tone. I too am not completely sure how neutral tone should sound like perfectly, but if certain phrases came off as objective and sounded more similarly to describing a topic than I assume this would be neutral. It really is coming together though. Just for context as to what I was talking about, in the section labeled Environment for Errors the first line begins "The ED creates a riskier environment than other areas of the hospital due ......."

Here maybe instead of using the word riskier you could approach like this: " The ED creates a greater potential for risks of errors than do other areas of the hospital due to....."

Although this may seem minor, I feel as if this lack of the superlative form of risk allows for the article to sound more like an objective description of the type of environment that does exist in the ED.

All in all I think you are off to a great start. Honestly though I may be reading into to it but thats my 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yacar.d (talk • contribs) 17:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)