Talk:Patient lift

Big concern about gutting "patient lift" article
I am here if you want to talk but it seems clear that sourcing is your (and perhaps Wikipedia's) highest value and it is hard to argue with a person's (or an institution such as Wikipedia's) ultimate concern.

But I hope you can understand how a professional in the medical device field can view your virtual elimination of an informative technical article (and one that gives little indication that it is unprofessional, uninformed, or biased) as something fundamentally destructive and entirely unhelpful to Wikipedia's users. At the very least, you could add a series of "citations needed" elements and wait a few weeks or months to see if someone in the field was willing to add them before erasing 80-90% of the article's contents.

If you read the original article or knew the history, you might have noticed that you also erased all information on sit-to-stand lifts which was an earlier separate Wikipedia article that had been merged into the "patient lift" article.

Jjdd11 (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes the content policies express Wikipedia's highest values.  There can be no original research. Instead, per WP:VERIFY all content must be actually derived from a reliable source.  Content must reflect the best sources well (postives and negatives, however the sources show them) and the language must be neutral - all that is in the neutral point of view policy.   Our mission here is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge (which we find in reliable sources) - this is not not a how-to guide or manual and is not for promotion - that is all in What Wikipedia is not.  Those are our values.Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Moving unsourced content to the Talk page is an option under WP:PRESERVE and that is what I did. Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * At some point I hope to get back here and see if I can find sources to VERIFY the content I posted above and to adjust it to match the sources. If you get to that first, that would be amazing. Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I repeat: At the very least, you could add a series of "citations needed" elements and wait a few weeks or months to see if someone in the field was willing to add them before erasing 80-90% of the article's contents.


 * When you have an article that has been read by hundreds (or perhaps thousands)of caregivers, nurses, physical therapists and other medical professionals over a period six or eight years with almost no edits or criticisms, that should say something important about the validity of the information. If the information were untrue, it would have been deleted or corrected. I see your exclusive commitment to validating information with sources as understandable given the rules but overall, it is too narrow a method of confirming the value and quality of Wikipedia information.


 * Deleting whole articles that describe important, widely used medical devices should be the last option used by Wikipedia editors, not the first.


 * It is the patients and caregivers who will suffer from this form of myopia.


 * I will see about adding some sources if I can find the time. Jjdd11 (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjdd11 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can yell all you want but content in WP articles needs to be sourced; there are many reasons for this that I won't belabor and will not debate, but that requirement is the very heart of Wikipedia and the mission. If you believe the content above is very important/urgent the best thing you can do is roll up your sleeves and do the work of finding reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it is important to distinguish rational arguments from "yelling". But you have the rules on your side and the awesome power of the delete button.  And adding references would certainly not hurt and probably would improve the article.2602:306:B891:2D20:BC31:F63F:C345:FED2 (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Fold-away patient lift
A fold-away patient lift (fold-away hoist, fold-away lift, hidden hoist) may be either a mobile lift or a fixed overhead lift. The fold-away patient lift is an assistive transfer device for patients whose mobility is limited. These sling lifts helps to transfer safely patients in hospitals and nursing homes and people receiving home health care between a bed and a chair or other similar resting places, by the use of electrical or hydraulic power. When not in use the fold-away lifts can be made smaller by internal mechanical movement of the lift in order to ease the storage the lift for example under the bed. Fixed overhead lifts are mechanically moved to a standard resting position, normally on the wall behind the bed. Some fixed overhead lifts (like Integralift, a brand name) has the apperance of a bedside furniture when positioned in resting position, in order to be aesthetically pleasing for the user.

Sling lifts. They could be mobile (or floor) lifts or overhead lifts (suspended from ceiling-mounted or overhead tracks).

The fold-away patient lift has several advantages. It allows heavy patients to be transferred while decreasing stress on caregivers while also reducing the number of nursing staff required to move patients. It also reduces the chance of orthopedic injury from lifting patients. . Also it does not occupy floor area when not in use, which might help general transfer and improve the aesthetics of the room in question.



Another kind of sling lift, which is called a ceiling lift, can be permanently installed on the ceiling of a room in order to save space.

Mistakes using patient lifts may result in serious injury and some injuries that have been caused by improper use or malfunction of sling lifts have led to civil lawsuits.


 * See also
 * Casualty lifting
 * Lift chair
 * Etac Molift mobile lifts and ceiling systems


 * References

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.213.39.178 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the intention is with the above....What is it? Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)