User:Howerzym/sandbox

Wikipedia Reflection
The most important thing I learned during the article evaluation is making sure the citations are from a reliable source and objective. Prior to this experience, I never spend time to ensure that the citations the article is using are reliable. This is an important step to take to make sure that the information you are receiving is credible. When selecting a topic to make additions to, I wanted to choose an article that was nursing focused. This would allowed me to expand and solidify the knowledge I have learned thus far in nursing school. Finally, when deciding what additions to make to my article, I first looked at the content of the article. Then, I thought about additional knowledge I would like to be included in this article if I were looking up this topic. I made additions to the article nursing care plan. First, I added some history on the changes of care planning. I thought this was important to show the evolution care planning and the scope of nursing practice. Also, I added a "how to" section on how to write a nursing care plan. I thought this was important to add for students. This would teach them the proper way to write a nursing care plan. After my additions, this article is still rated a Start-Class on the quality scale. This indications that more additions need to be contributed. When reviewing my peers article, I first looked for grammar and spelling errors. In their sandbox talk page I clearly listed the paragraph sentence number that had the error. This allowed them to immediately find the sentence and make the correction. Next, I looked at the Wikipedia article page they were critiquing. I considered the content of the article to see if their addition was important and applicable. Finally, I determined if there was anything else they could add to the article. I suggested to one of my peers the consideration of adding more proven ways of smoking cessation. Two of my peers reviewed my additions to the article. Their only suggestions were minor grammar and spelling errors. I received an email that another Wikipedia editor removed my "how to" section on the nursing care plan article. This is because "how to" sections are not allowed in Wikipedia. This is especially important because someone else could edit it and add something very harmful in it. I was very thankful for this feedback because I am new to Wikipedia and did not know we could not add a "how to" section. I went to Wikipedia to thank him; however, I was unable to find where he left the comment. I attribute this again to my novice skill level with Wikipedia. From contributing to Wikipedia, I learned the importance of collaborating with others. Other Wikipedia editors have put a lot of effort into this page; therefore, it is important to include in the articles talk page thoughts about the article, what additions you made, and why you made them. This will ensure a successful collaboration with others to help improve the article. This assignment was very different compared to other assignments I've done in the past. With Wikipedia, my additions will be available to be viewed by the public. With previous assignments, my instructors are the only people who are viewing my writing. Therefore, it is very important to ensure a reliable source, and use professional writing that is unbiased. Next, to improve public understanding of the topic, we must use reliable sources. Wikipedia is a commonly used website for general knowledge. By using credible sources, readers will receive factual knowledge they can use in their education and everyday life.
 * Critiquing articles: What did you learn about Wikipedia during the article evaluation? How did you approach critiquing the article you selected for this assignment? How did you decide what to add to your chosen article?
 * Summarizing your contributions: include a summary of your edits and why you felt they were a valuable addition to the article. How does your article compare to earlier versions?
 * Peer Review: If your class did peer review, include information about the peer review process. What did you contribute in your review of your peers article? What did your peers recommend you change on your article?
 * Feedback: Did you receive feedback from other Wikipedia editors, and if so, how did you respond to and handle that feedback?
 * Wikipedia generally: What did you learn from contributing to Wikipedia? How does a Wikipedia assignment compare to other assignments you've done in the past? How can Wikipedia be used to improve public understanding of our field/your topic? Why is this important?

History
The function of nursing care plans has changed drastically over the past several decades. In 1953, care planning was not believed to be within the nursing scope of practice. In the 1970s, care planning was activity based. Patients were listed according to the procedures they were having done, which determined their plan of care. Care provided was passed on by word of mouth, dressing books, and work lists. These forms of communication all focus on activities the nurse performed instead of focusing on the patient. Today, nursing care plans focus on the individuals unique set of needs and goals. Care plans are individualized to create a patient-centered approach to care. Therefore, nurses must perform a physical assessment prior to planning a patients care.

How to Write a Care Plan

 * 1) The first step to creating a care plan is performing a full assessment on your patient. Both objective and subjective information will be obtained. This step needs to be completed before beginning any care plan.
 * 2) After performing a thorough assessment, the nurse can make a nursing diagnosis based on the data. Based on the data, the nurse will be able to prioritize which problem is most important. To begin, a nursing diagnosis has two or three parts. First, the nurse must pick a standard nursing diagnosis from the official NANDA-I list. Next, is the "related to" (r/t) statement. This is the etiology or cause of the problem. Last, is the "as evidenced by" (aeb) statement. This will be the list of signs and symptoms of the problem that the nurse identified during the assessment. This must be separated by subjective and objective data. To summarize, the first column of the nursing care plan will include the nursing diagnosis. This includes: the NANDA-I nursing diagnosis r/t the etiology aeb signs and symptoms including both subjective and objective data.
 * 3) Next, a list of outcomes must be developed. The NOC list may be used to assist in selecting outcomes. NOC has specific outcomes for each NANDA-I nursing diagnosis. When writing the outcomes, remember the acronym SMART. This means that a nursing outcome must be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timed. For example, the outcome, "The patients respiratory rate will improve" is not acceptable. It is not measurable, and there is no time frame. Instead, "The patient demonstrates proper use of incentive spirometer by end of shift" is an acceptable outcome because it is measurable and has a time frame.
 * 4) Next, a list of interventions must be developed to accomplish the set outcomes. The NIC list may be used to assist in selecting interventions. NIC has specific interventions for each NANDA-I nursing diagnosis. These interventions may either be independent or collaborative interventions. If the intervention is independent, this means that the nurse can autonomously perform without an order. Some independent interventions are coughing and deep breathing, re-adjusting a patient, and putting pillows underneath a patients arm. If the intervention is collaborative, this means that the nurse must have an order. A collaborative intervention is performing a urinary catheterization. An appropriate nursing intervention for the nursing outcome listed above is, "Teach proper use of incentive spirometer during shift."
 * 5) Finally, an evaluation must be performed to assess the interventions. Evaluation continually occurs throughout the nursing process. An evaluation must be performed prior to initiation of interventions to give a baseline. Then, the nurse will reassess the patient after the interventions have been performed. This will allow nurses to ensure that the outcomes are being met. On a nursing care plan, you will rate 1-5 on each outcome for both their baseline and their status after initiation of interventions. For the nursing outcome list above, the baseline would be rated a 1 because the patient has not learned how to use an incentive spirometer. If the patient demonstrates proper use of the incentive spirometer by the end of the shift, that outcome would then be rated as a 5 post-intervention.

Finalizing Topic
I am going to be contributing the article Nursing Care Plan for my final article.
 * I am hoping to add the history of planning care in nursing, and how to write a nursing care plan.

Article Improvements
Listed below are a couple articles and suggestions to improve the article page.
 * 1) Nursing Assessment
 * 2) In the third line in the opening paragraph, there is the sentence, "It differs from a medical diagnosis." I think that this sentence should be taken out. The author was talking about the nursing assessment, and then included that sentence. This sentence should be included when talking about the nursing diagnosis, not the nursing assessment.
 * 3) Under the Client Interview section, the author included the OLDCART acronym. In class, we learned to use this acronym after someone stated they were in pain. The only thing that would make this section better would be including what is meant by characteristics. Some people may not know what this means. The author could include that you could ask the patient to describe the pain.
 * 4) Under the Physical Examination section, the second paragraph is only one sentence. Although it is a short paragraph, this should be made into a couple sentences to make it more understandable.
 * 5) Under focused assessment, they do not have an explanation of all of the focused assessments nurses do. They only have a partial list. To improve this section, the additionally focused assessments should be added. This would include adding cardiovascular, lungs and thorax, breast and abdomen, and musculoskeletal.
 * 6) Nursing diagnosis - This is the article that is used for my article evaluation. I thought that this article had a good start; however, there is a lot of improvement to be made.
 * 7) I would first add alternatives to the NANDA-I diagnoses list since there are various standardized nursing diagnoses lists used.
 * 8) Also, I would add an explanation on how to write a nursing diagnosis.
 * 9) Nursing Process
 * 10) This page was giving an overview of what the nursing process is. It listed all the steps involved in the nursing process and gave a short explanation for each. For each topic, they included a link to that topic. However, I think it would also be helpful to provide a little more explanation under each of the steps as to what the nurse will be doing.
 * 11) Nursing Care Plan
 * 12) This article gives a short summary of what a nursing care plan is, its objective, and the components included in a care plan. To improve this article, instructions on how to make a nursing care plan are important. This article should summarize in a step-by-step process how to write a care plan.
 * 13) This article could also include a picture of an example nursing plan to show how the steps are put into action.
 * 14) This article should also use different lists, such as the NIC and NOC, that are used in creating the outcomes and interventions.
 * 15) By doing all these things, this article would provide readers sufficient knowledge to feel confident making a care plan.

Article Evaluation
This is an evaluation of the article, "Nursing Diagnosis." Nursing diagnosis
 * All of the information in this article pertains to the topic of nursing diagnosis. It states how a nursing diagnosis differs from a medical diagnosis. It also gives information on NANDA international, which is an organization creating the standardized nursing diagnoses that are used worldwide. Also, it talks about the four different categories of nursing diagnoses contained in NANDA-I: actual diagnosis, risk diagnosis, health promotion diagnosis, and syndrome diagnosis. This article also discusses the nursing process, which at first may seem like a distractor because the nursing diagnosis is only one part of the nursing process. However, it states that the nursing diagnosis actually encompasses the whole nursing process. The nurse will use the assessment findings to create a nursing diagnosis. They will then create outcomes to help improve their patients condition, and they will create interventions to reach these outcomes. After their specified time frame for the outcomes, the nurse can evaluate if these outcomes were achieved.
 * This article clearly stated what a nursing diagnosis was, the organization body, NANDA-I, that created a standardized language for nursing diagnoses, and how the nursing diagnosis related to the nursing process. However, this article never stated how to actually write a nursing diagnosis. This was very disappointing because many people searching this topic probably want to learn how to write a nursing diagnosis as well. Therefore, this article needs to section dedicated to teaching how to write a nursing diagnosis.
 * This article is neutral. There were no comments that seemed biased in any way. However, it did only talk about NANDA-I as an organization for standardized nursing diagnoses when there are other organizations as well. This may seem a little biased, but NANDA-I is the most commonly used nursing diagnoses. When talking about NANDA-I, it did not state that is was the best standardized nursing diagnosis to use.
 * As stated above, they did not include other organizations that created standardized nursing diagnoses. Therefore, those categories are underrepresented.
 * The information on how to write a nursing diagnosis is missing from this article. Adding this information will increase the value of this article.
 * All of the links in the citations work. They bring you to the exact website where the information was obtained from. The citation for Potter and Perry gave an ISBN number because the information was obtained from a book. Therefore, this took a little more searching to find an online copy of the book. Also, you had to pay for all of the copies I found.
 * All of the facts are referenced with an article. Some of the sections like, "Process" just have a reference at the end of the section. I believe this is appropriate because all of the information is secluded to its own section. Also, I believe it would be inappropriate to have the same reference number at the end of each bullet point in that section. All of the references go to reliable sources. Some of the sources are Potter and Perry, NANDA International, American Nurses Association, and NANDA Nursing Diagnosis List. All of these sources are very factual with no biases.
 * One of the citations, Fima, Odile; Langlassé, Armelle (1994), I believe is out of date. It was only used in the example section with a link to constipation. However, I believe that there is a newer article that could present information based on newer research.
 * On the talk page, someone stated that there are alternative to the NANDA-I that are not listed, which I noticed as well. They stated that these should be added. I agree because all organizations creating standardized nursing diagnoses should be represented. Another author also stated that there is only one reference listed in the "Process" section. They gave other references available to use. A different author responded that those cites seemed "like a lot of copy/paste." So, many of the conversations happening in the Talk page were about the addition of other sources.
 * This article has been rated as Start-Class. The criteria state that this is an article that is developing, but it is incomplete. It states that readers will need more information on this topic.

Morgan,

I evaluated your article as well as your article critiques using a certain criteria. This criteria included whether or not the present article information was relevant to the topic, if the information remained neutral, if information was over presented, if the citation links worked, and whether or not the information presented was out of date. I found that the information presented in the article was in fact relevant to the topic. However, as I read this article I found that it was only the start of an article. You have done a lot to improve and add to the good information that was already there. The information presented was also very factual. There was not an overlap in the information that was presented. The article went through the several steps of a nursing care plan that presented clear concise information to the reader. I think the most important thing to focus on with this article was not so much the editing, but rather the addition of new and important information to a beginning article. The additional information you added to this article was very factual, and did not contain bias. The citation links work, however, the very first citation link is a link to "nursing care". This link does not take you to "nursing care" the link takes the reader to "nursing" in general. So that could be re-evaluated. Lastly, the information was up to date with excellent new references. The only two areas of concern raised were the citation links, and the need for even more additional information on this topic.

Signed: Madelyn Engelsma

Wikipedia is a place to be bold.

Hello