User talk:Aw14uw/PatientSafetySANDBOX

Congratulations on getting your sandbox set up. Best wishes with the assignment. --LynnMcCleary (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you professor McCleary! I would also like to introduce myself to the other members of my Wikipedia assignment group, my name is Kayleigh.

I am looking forward to working in collaboration with you all, enjoy your weekend! Kt13us (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My name is Tania and I am also looking forward to working on this project together.

I am also looking forward to working on this project with everyone! Vw13mp (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Areas for Article Improvement

 * Causes of Health Care Error - Expand Human Factors and Medical Complexity
 * Draw better connections to aviation Safety Management Systems
 * Just Culture & Failure to Report - this section doesn't exist yet. Discipline for error and fear of reprisal/being sued.
 * Canadian Perspective could be added
 * Formatting - Need to make sections clearer. Need to study some other articles and wiki code to improved this area.

My top two areas are the Just Culture/Failure to Report & Formatting. Right now, the article really reads as a block of text, so some layout changes and pictures/diagrams would be helpful for the reader. -- Aw14uw (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Technology in Healthcare - specifically add to Types of Healthcare Technology and Computerized Provider Order Entry
 * Public Reporting and possibly Pay for Performance - Add Canadian perspective
 * Healthy Literacy - Improve and Expand

I'm interested in taking the responsibility of improving and expanding the Health Literacy section and elaborating on Expand Human Factors and Medical Complexity. Also, showing a Canadian Perspective under Public Reporting and if possible, under Pay for Performance as well. Tt13lq (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of the current suggested improvements in this article. Many improvements that I would like to make correspond with those above. Here are the improvements I had noted as I read the article:
 * lack of a neutral opinion of patient safety- article focuses mainly on the repercussions of poor patient safety instead of its importance in the work field (focuses on illness care rather than health care for patients)
 * a portion of the information is not referenced (such as dates and facts/figures)
 * there is a lack of global perspectives, specifically the Canadian perspective
 * the article also needs to elaborate more on the causes of healthcare error- specifically on medical complexity
 * modern prevalence of adverse effects could be added

The two areas of the text that I would like to work on include adding the Canadian perspective, possibly this part could be a collaborative effort as it was noticed by each member of the group, and I would also like to focus on elaborating on the medical complexity aspect of healthcare error. It would also be beneficial if we all took part in making the page more appealing to readers by adding graphics, and adjusting layout of text. Over all we have similar perspectives which will be good in our collaboration to improve this article. Kt13us (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that all of these changes listed above can benefit this article and help to make it more clear for the reader. I would like to take the responsibility of expanding the Studies of Patient Safety and adding more relevant detail. I would also like to work on, Organizations advocating patient safety and add more of a global perspective to show how countries over the world are responsible for addressing this issue. Vw13mp (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In the ‘Causes of Healthcare Error’, facts put into the "System Failures" column fit better in the "Human Errors" section. This area could also add more detail about how communication can cause adverse events.
 * Health Literacy - This passage could go into more depth as well as stating where the research is from. It also could add statistics from research done in other countries to view a as a comparison.
 * Public reporting - More research could be done to see if there is any other countries who have acts that require reporting’s to be done for patients deaths.
 * Studies of Patient Safety - This passage goes into unnecessary detail and lacks having broad coverage of the topic.

Discussion About Changes
For discussion about the changes; might be easier to put the discussion here, and be able to reference the suggested changes above. -- Aw14uw (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

After discussing in class yesterday that the alterations to the page should be communication oriented (makes sense..), I have found a few new suggestions as to how these alterations and improvements can be made:
 * the health literacy section - expand the knowledge on this section: define health literacy, elaborate on how the medication errors are influenced by miscommunication and the different levels of communication, identify what the adverse outcomes of mismatched communication between the clinician's level of communication and the patient's ability to understand are, add more evidence as to why health literacy is beneficial or a lack of it imposes potential issues
 * voluntary disclosure section- elaborate on the topic (it is a small piece of text), link with communicational aspects such as the reason a care provider may choose not to disclose and error they have made (even a serious medical error)

If the group is okay with this, I would like to work on these two sections of text. Please give me feedback as I am willing to make adjustments to what I think should be changed. Thank you! I will start working on my improvements to these sections soon and will post them for your evaluation of meeting the “good article criteria”.

Side note: the prior changes suggested with regards to improving the layout (adding images, formatting text) and referencing of text should still be done Kt13us (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I defiantly support the addition of a section about voluntary disclosure. If that were to incorporate or link to something about Just Culture I think that'd be a big section. There is a good PowerPoint from New York State at http://www.health.ny.gov/professionals/patients/patient_safety/conference/2007/docs/patient_safety_and_the_just_culture.pdf. I would like to put myself down to tackle the job of re-organizing the page sections and finding some good images (that are in the public domain) to add. -- Aw14uw (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have just read through that PowerPoint from New York State and I think that a lot of the information can be contributed to adding onto the voluntary disclosure section. Thank you very much! Kayleigh 17:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)

The points listed under ‘Human Factors’ in the Causes of Healthcare Error could be expanded upon and possibly linked to studies that prove these facts. I would like to take the responsibility of looking for links and references for each of these points and expanding them to help justify why these are mentioned. I would also like to take some of the points listed under the system failures and move them into the human factors. The points mentioned about communication seem more relevant to be a human error than a system failure. I think that changing the layout of the article and adding pictures can defiantly help the reader, and make it more appealing.

Lastly, for the section on health literacy, your plans to change this sections seem like they will improve it and it defiantly needs an aspect about communication in it. Possibly you could add how over time these countries have changed their practice to lessen these adverse outcomes through improved communication? (Not sure if there is any research done, but it if there is it could improve it) But otherwise both of the sections you are going to change seem like they will improve the relation between this article and communication. Vw13mp (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * All of you have mentioned some excellent points! I think it is a great idea to add more to the Voluntary disclosure section. The powerpoint linked above seems like a good start. I also agree on improving the layout of the article. I feel like the order of the content could also be changed as it doesn't seem to have a structure or flow to it. As I was reading the article, I noticed it does not specifically mention how critical communication and teamwork is to the culture of Patient Safety. If it is okay with others, I would like to add a section Communication and Teamwork  (or something along these lines) I will research and make sure to get reliable information on the topic and keep you guys updated. However, if at any point you think that it somehow violates the criteria for a good Wikipedia article or something does not need to be added, please let me know.

I also noticed that the facts stated under Medical Complexity have not been cited so I will look into that. --Tania 01:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tt13lq (talk • contribs)

Lynn's comments and suggestions re: initial critiques and ideas
You are off to a good start. I love the enthusiasm you have for this article. Please keep in mind that your assignment is that "Your edits should focus on improving content related to communication." (as per my email giving you this assignment). I'm find with you editing beyond this (anyone can edit Wikipedia any time) but for your grades for this assignment, I will be focused on what you've improved related to communication. I think you should focus there. The idea is to make the assignment relevant to this course and keep the assignment scope manageable. Thinking about the entire article is a good idea, so that you can make your edits coherent with what is already there but you need to meet the assignment related to communication.--LynnMcCleary (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Before you move on, you need to come to some consensus about what your goals are for your editing. Deciding where individuals will focus ahead of that would be inefficient. You may decide as a group that you will all focus on one particular area of the article to improve - or some linked areas. You need to be able to collaborate and help each other in order to make a coherent improvement to the article. LynnMcCleary (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am happy to meet with your group to discuss this and help you focus. LynnMcCleary (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of discussion so far about how the article compares to good article criteria and what you'll be aiming to do to ensure you move it towards meeting good article criteria. LynnMcCleary (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you professor McCleary for the direction in which to take this assignment, if we are unable to come to an agreement on what should be contributed with regards to communication we will make sure to meet with you.

In terms of coming to a group consensus on the areas of communication to be improved, I believe that the main focus should be on improving the voluntary disclosure section and the health literacy section as these can be tied into to concepts of effective and ineffective communication (and the implications on patient safety). I have provided (above in conversation) a list of additions or changes that could be made to improve the communication aspects of each section (as they both are related to communication). In terms of making the article meet the good article criteria there must be changes made to ensure that all work is verifiable (some info is not cited). It should also be broad in its coverage (address aspect of communication, as it does pertain to the subject). The article could also use some illustrations as previously mentioned. Overall the article is fairly neutral in aspects of communication, as it lacks information on the topic all together. In case someone in the group discussion would like to review the criteria for a good Wikipedia article they are as follows: Maybe the group can arrange a time to meet in person so that we can ensure we are all on the same page for the main focus of our editing to this page. Thank you! Kayleigh 02:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)
 * well-written
 * verifiable with no original research
 * broad in its coverage
 * neutral
 * stable
 * illustrated
 * Yes, I think meeting in person is a good idea to get us all together and working towards specific goals. Does someone want to propose a date/time?  Perhaps tomorrow (Thursday Sept 25) before PKEN?  3 PM?  Might be too soon for everyone to see...  Sakai email also sent.  --Aw14uw (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 3PM tomorrow (Thursday Sept 25) works well for me, if it works well for others as well. This will at least give us a half an hour to ensure we are all on the same page with regards to the content that we wish to improve! Let me know if this time works for others, and where you would like to meet. Thank you! Kayleigh 16:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)


 * I did reply on Sakai but I'm okay with meeting up at 3 tomorrow. Maybe we can meet up on the main floor library? (if the location hasn't been decided already) Tania 02:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tt13lq (talk • contribs)
 * Be careful about dividing up responsibilities. This assignment is supposed to be an opportunity to collaborate. Collaboration should lead to better editing changes than if you work individually - and collaboration is how Wikipedia works. You all need to develop a better understanding of the relationship between communication and patient safety - so that you can be credible sources. It is okay to focus your research on finding out more about how communication influences patient safety (and maybe ways that improving communication improves patient safety. This would give you lots of information to fit in to the article. --LynnMcCleary (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One more thing - what do you think about the bullet lists in relation to what Wikipedia guidelines suggest?--LynnMcCleary (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * With regards to what professor LynnMcCleary has asked about the use of bullet lists in relation to the Wikipedia guidelines I have realized that there are sections of the text that have improperly used bullet lists. According to the Wikipedia guidelines on bullet lists, they should be used for the following:

In the patient safety article, the categories causes of healthcare error, quality improvement and safety initiatives in pediatrics, pay for performance and evidence-based medicine do not seem to list information that follow under the guidelines. They have used bulleted lists more for organization of information rather than writing a clear and concise paragraph. Few of these areas are in relation to communication, but adjusting these as a whole would help the article to meet the good Wikipedia article criteria. Let me know what your opinion is on making these adjustments together, thank you! Kayleigh 16:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)
 * a glossary
 * an index of articles
 * a bibliography
 * a discography
 * a timeline
 * an etymology
 * set index articles
 * a dynamic list

From the group meeting today: We are focused more on how communication impacts patient safety. Decided to add a dedicated section to article. A good resource can be found at http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/ --Aw14uw (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Credible Sources List
From the Canadian Patient Safety Institute
 * Framework for Teamwork and Communication
 * Report and Recommendations from CPSI to organizations about how improved communication leads to safer and better care.


 * Disclosure Guidelines
 * Best practice guidelines for disclosure of adverse events.


 * Making Care Safer
 * Report on three areas of risk (VTE, surgical care, and home care) & how they are being managed.

Aaron (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Also from Canadian Patient Safety Institute


 * Safety in Home Care
 * Defines patient safety in various ways, reviews importance of safety not only in industrialized environments but also home care. Summarizes many studies that are related to home care and states recommendations for education, policy and further research for Patient Safety.


 * Canadian Incident Analysis Framework
 * Indicates that many incidents can occur that impact lives of patients and families. Points out that continuous communication between physicians, nurses, patients and even families can help prevent such incidents.


 * Teamwork and Communication in Health Care
 * Emphasizes how critical Teamwork and Communication is in health care and for the safety of patients. I found this article to be very useful, I believe it definitely has some points that can be used to improve our wiki article in terms of communication.

-- Tania (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

From Canadian Patient Safety Institute From the Brock library I have requested a hold on a book that I think would benefit our understanding of how communication effects patient safety, the book is:
 * The safety competencies; enhancing patient safety across the health professions - this article focuses on 6 domains of patient safety, 3 of which pertain to how communication effects patient safety, they are: communicate effectively for patient safety, work in teams for patient safety, and recognize, respond to and disclose adverse events (responding is communication oriented)
 * Guidelines for Informing the Media After an Adverse Event - this article pertains to the section in our article that deals with Voluntary Disclosure (previously discussed in terms of communication), the article has a focus on a crisis communication plan which I think would benefit that section of the wiki article to describe how communication would effect the outcome of voluntary disclosure (ex. self-disclosure and evaluation anxiety)
 * Improving patient safety through teamwork and team training / edited by Eduardo Salas ... [et al.].

I am sure that the first two sources I have chosen will be good secondary recourses in this assignment, and I will keep in touch about the book that I have found and if it is as relevant as the chapter summaries prove it to be. Thank you, I feel much better about our understanding of where we are going with this assignment after our group meeting. I have briefly scanned through all sources posted thus far and they seem to be very good sources. Hope you all enjoy your weekend! Kayleigh 03:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)

This book describes methods that can help to eliminate adverse events caused by a lack of communication. It gives approaches that can strengthen the bond between patient and nurse therefore allowing the patient to open up about present problems that can help to treat him/her and minimize mistakes made in the workplace. It explains the importance of health literacy and how it relates to clinical work. This online book has a section that describes the importance of disclosing adverse events to patients. It also explains the importance of communication to avoid these events. Vw13mp (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Communication for Nurses: How to Prevent Harmful Events and Promote Patient Safety.
 * The Evolving Concept of Health Literacy
 * Improving patient safety through disclosure and quality improvement reviews: a report from Getting it Right - A policy forum to advance quality improvement in Canada, November 2010.

Credible Sources List Cited
As we discussed in lecture today, we each must cite our sources for the assignment. Here are the citations for the sources I found:
 * The Safety Competencies. (n.d.). Patient Safety Institute . Retrieved October 1, 2014, from http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/English/toolsResources/safetyCompetencies/Documents/Safety%20Competencies.pdf
 * Best Practice Guide. (n.d.). Patient Safety Institute . Retrieved October 1, 2014, from http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/English/news/Documents/CPSI%20Best%20Practice%20Guide.pdf
 * Salas, E. (2013). Improving patient safety through teamwork and team training. New York: Oxford University Press.

Information regarding what these sources have to offer is detailed in the above references section. Kayleigh 19:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)

These are my citations for the sources I listed above Tania (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Safety In Home Care. (n.d.). Retrieved October 1, 2014, from http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/English/research/commissionedResearch/SafetyinHomeCare/Documents/Safety in Home Care.pdf
 * Canadian Incident Analysis Framework. (n.d.). Retrieved October 1, 2014, from http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/English/toolsResources/IncidentAnalysis/Documents/Canadian Incident Analysis Framework.PDF
 * Teamwork and Communication In Health Care. (n.d.). Retrieved October 1, 2014, from http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/English/toolsResources/teamworkCommunication/Documents/Canadian Framework for Teamwork and Communications Lit Review.pdf

http://journals2.scholarsportal.info.proxy.library.brocku.ca/pdf/02779536/v67i0012/2072_tecohl.xml http://books1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.library.brocku.ca/viewdoc.html?id=/ebooks/ebooks0/gibson_cppc-chrc/2013-07-25/1/10708973#tabview=tab1 Vw13mp (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * McHugh Svhuster, Pamela and Nykolyn, Linda. 2010. Communication for Nurses: How to Prevent Harmful Events and Promote Patient Safety. Pennsylvania, United States of America: F.A. Davis Company.
 * Don Nutbeam (2006). The Evolving Concept of Health Literacy. Retrieved from
 * Canadian Medical Protective Association (2012). Improving patient safety through disclosure and quality improvement reviews: a report from Getting it Right - A policy forum to advance quality improvement in Canada, November 2010. Retrieved from

My sources cited as well.
 * Canadian Framework for Teamwork and Communication: Literature Review, Needs Assessment, Evaluation of Training Tools and Expert Consultations. (2011). Canadian Patient Safety Institute. Retrieved October 2, 2014 from http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/English/toolsResources/teamworkCommunication/Documents/Canadian%20Framework%20for%20Teamwork%20and%20Communications.pdf
 * Canadian Disclosure Guidelines. (2011). Canadian Patient Safety Institute. Retrieved October 2, 2014 from http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/English/toolsResources/disclosure/Documents/CPSI%20Canadian%20Disclosure%20Guidelines.pdf
 * Making Care Safer: from Hospital to Home. (2014). Canadian Patient Safety Institute. Retrieved October 2, 2014 from http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/English/toolsResources/patientSafetyPublications/Documents/Making%20Care%20Safer%20From%20Hospital%20to%20Home%20Care.pdf
 * Aw14uw (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, group. You've got some good resources. You have some that are extensive. To keep from getting overwhelmed, remember to keep your focus on communication. LynnMcCleary (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Professor advice re: summarizing and collaborating
Tania, Kt13us , Vw13mp, and Aw14uw , you’ve got some great sources. I think you have the potential to get overwhelmed by the amount of information you have. I have some suggestions for you for your next steps – to help you keep your work manageable and within the scope of this assignment. Keep your expectations of yourselves reasonable. Thinking about the communication model we learned about the first week of class might be helpful to help you keep your focus on communication. Beware of being sidetracked by information that is interesting but not relevant to the goals your group set.

See the course page for information about your tasks due October 22.

Your summaries should be between 250 and at most 400 words for each source. Try not to make them long. If there aren’t 250 words worth of information in your source, don't blather on to fill space. I am looking for summaries I can understand and that are logical and coherent. You'll need to really focus in on the heart of the relevant findings. You should be aiming to tell your group members what the key messages are in your sources and how you think the information fits or doesn't fit with the article (it's okay if you logically determine that it wouldn't add to the article). If there is repetition within your sources, you should note that. Hopefully there is. Each summary should have a citation that is acceptable for Wikipedia and that has the information needed for a reader to verify your interpretation by finding your source. Links that only work within the university aren’t user friendly for me or your group members. If there is information that you can’t paraphrase, indicate quotes with quotation marks and page numbers.

When you've got your summaries done, hopefully there will be some themes and repetition among your summaries. Your job then is to collaboratively decide on what deserves to be suggested as an edit for the article and craft summaries of what your group found that could be incorporated in the article. That might be citations for information that is already there or new information. Discuss why your new information is relevant to the article.

I can copy your article over to your sandbox so you can practice editing before you make any suggestions to the editors of the patient safety article. If you want me to do that, let me know by email or by using my user name in a response to this post. As always, I'm available to guide you.

Don't forget to sign your posts. I look up your contributions by user name for grading. If you don't sign your posts, you won't get credit for them when I'm grading.LynnMcCleary (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Source Summaries
Citation: Teamwork and Communication Working Group. Improving patient safety with effective teamwork and communication: Literature review needs assessment, evaluation of training tools and expert consultations. Edmonton (AB): Canadian Patient Safety Institute; 2011.

Summary: This document was created by the Canadian Patient Safety Institute (CPSI) to aid organizations in developing and refining their own framework for supporting good communication as a way to enhance patient safety. This was done by conducting a review of existing research, a needs assessment of the current status of teamwork and communication in the Canadian health care system, a review of existing training programs, and consultation with national and international experts. Recommendations are presented many of the various rolls in health care; Leadership/Decision makers, Middle Managers, Front Line providers, and Educators. The literature review highlighted the characteristics of effective teams, the characteristics of effective communication in healthcare, and teamwork and communication are important to a culture of patient safety. They found a gap in the literature regarding what is the most effective way of delivering communications training. The needs assessment found that there were four established programs of human factor error reduction in use in the Canadian health care system. They are Crew Resource Management (CRM), Managing Obstetrical Risk Efficiently (MORE-OB), TeamSTEPPS, and Triad for Optimal Patient Safety (TOPS). Each program has some areas of strength and some areas of weekness. A framework for what elements maximize a program’s effectiveness is also presented. The recommendations listed are: “Leaders and Decision-makers actively promote, fund and evaluate integration of teamwork and communication training and education programs within organizations and pre-practice settings. Middle Managers establish formalized training in effective teamwork and communication as part of the core education and continuing education requirements within healthcare organizations with a particular focus on everyday practice and crisis situations. Middle managers should also standardize (as much as possible) general approaches to teamwork and communication training across organizations and consider incorporating one of the recommended training approaches contained within the summary document. Front-line Healthcare Providers should actively incorporate patients and family members as full members of the healthcare team ensuring all opportunities are sought and created to solicit information for healthcare decisions. Actively engage and participate in training opportunities for improved teamwork and communication and commit to integrating this knowledge into practice. Educators should continue to encourage and support interprofessional practice education in all health professional programs.”

--Aw14uw (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation: Disclosure Working Group. Canadian disclosure guidelines: being open and honest with patients and families. Edmonton, AB: Canadian Patient Safety Institute; 2011.

Summary: This document was prepared by the CPSI to give help to organizations and individuals when dealing with the disclosure of a patient safety incident. Deliberate and explicit effort is made to replace the word ‘error.’ The multi-facieted and complex nature of patient care, the interplay of many factors, results in the concept of system failure rather than an isolated cause. The document is a guide, used to develop individual policies, practices, and training in combination with professional standards, applicable law and regulation, and legal advice. The disclosure guidelines are intended to help not only the patient and their family, but also health care providers. The introduction and maintaining of a Just Culture, will benefit all; patients, providers,and organizations. The process of disclosure is outlined in several steps. The most important part, highlighted several times, is the need to say ‘sorry’ in a genuine and meaningful way. When evaluating the circumstances of when disclosure should take place, the emphasis is on assessing the source of the harm. Was the harm part of the patient’s disease process, a risk of treatment, or did it arise from a patient safety incident. Generally, all patient safety incidents must be disclosed to the patient unless it was a ‘near miss’. The stages of disclosure are also outlined; initial disclosure, analysis, and post-disclosure follow-up. Each stage is broken down in detail; who, what, when, why, and how. There are additional details for a large-scale disclosure where multiple patients are affected.

--Aw14uw (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation: Making Care Safer: from Hospital to Home. (2014). Canadian Patient Safety Institute.

Summary: This is a report prepared by CPSI in conjunction with Accreditation Canada. It examines three areas of growing risk in Canada; Venous Thromboembolism (VTE), surgical care, and home care. Research and audits showed that compliance with VTE prophylaxis guidelines were sub-optimal. Although there have been improvements, in 2012 (the last year data was available) compliance with established guidelines was was only 77%. Continued education and training was cited as critical to continued improvement in this area. One of the most effective tools for safety that has been introduced into surgical care is a safety checklist. There is high compliance (95%) with use in acute care facilities. However, Health Systems had poorer compliance (68%). This gap was not explained, but was identified as an area where further study was required. According to the report, the most common types of harm in home care were “injuries from falls, medication related incidents, and infections.” Best practice guidelines and tools for organizations are given with the goal of enhancing patient safety. Most of these were not complete or included with this report but are highlighted as future publications from CPSI and Accreditation Canada.

--Aw14uw (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

McHugh Svhuster, Pamela and Nykolyn, Linda. 2010. Communication for Nurses: How to Prevent Harmful Events and Promote Patient Safety. Pennsylvania, United States of America: F.A. Davis Company.

Communication for Nurses: How to Prevent Harmful Events and Promote Patient Safety:
 * In Unit 2, chapter 6, there are a few pages that explain the client-nurse relationship, and how it can fail to cause adverse events. This can relate to the passage that we are adding about communication and how to effectively communicate while being the healthcare provider in these relationships.
 * There are many reasons why there can be ineffective communication in the client-nurse relationship (can be applicable to healthcare providers as well). A few of these reasons are: Misunderstanding of the patient’s perspective and cultural beliefs. When a patient has a cultural difference than that of the general population in that region, it is preferable to assign a nurse (or other medical professional in this position) to that patient. When dealing with a patient who is of a different culture, it is easier for the patient to feel comfortable when with someone who shares similar beliefs, and can therefore maximize the efficiency of the communication. Patient’s suffering from cognitive, visual or auditory disability can sometimes have a more difficult time communicating with their healthcare provider. Lastly, stress in the relationship. When the relationship becomes stressed, it becomes difficult to achieve mutual agreement on issues regarding the patient and communication becomes tense and strained. It is important for the nurse to recognize where there is stress present and know how to adequately deal with it. There are two strategies that are demonstrated in this book that are important in patient safety. Assertiveness is the ability to give direct and clear messages and stand up for oneself. They are able to handle situation’s, which become stressful and manage them appropriately. The other strategy is Management of Professional Identity. This is the ability to control how you present yourself to the clients. The way that we can manage out identity is through our manners, appearance, and setting.
 * In Unit 3, chapter 12, I also found some relevant information that describes the ways in which errors can occur. Errors can happen through decision-making, violations, and through latent conditions. The latter category includes “more acutely ill patients...shorter hospital stays”(Schuster & Nykolyn, 2010, p170), “frequent patient turnover...extended hours and overtime...stressful work conditions...interruption-driven environment”(Schuster & Nykolyn et al., 2010, p171), and “high nursing workload”(Schuster & Nykolyn et al., 2010, p172).

Don Nutbeam (2008). Evolving Concept of Health Literacy. Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 67, p.2072-2078. Doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.050

The Evolving Concept of Health Literacy: Canadian Medical Protective Association (2012). Improving patient safety through disclosure and quality improvement reviews: a report from Getting it Right - A policy forum to advance quality improvement in Canada, November 2010. Retrieved from http://www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/common/documents/policy/getting_it_right_e.pdf
 * This journal can add suitable information regarding the health literacy section. Although it is not directly related to patient safety, it discusses the importance of health literacy and the risks that are involved with inadequate literacy skills among the staff. It also discusses the benefits to the individual organization that advocates wiser health related decision-making. Lastly, it explains a concept that can measure health literacy in the workplace.
 * As I reread this article that I picked, I am realizing that it does not have any information about communication. If we are still interested in adding more to the health literacy section, there is some information here that will help to improve it but it does not relate to the communication aspect of this project.

Improving Patient Safety Through Disclosure and Quality Improvement Reviews: A Report from Getting It Right- A Policy Forum to Advance Quality Improvement in Canada: Vw13mp (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This online book discusses how healthcare settings can work to improve their conditions in order to maximize patient safety. It is determined that several factors work together to prevent adverse events including a “Just Culture of Safety”(Canadian Medical Protective Association, 2012, p5). This means that the healthcare setting must recognize the importance of disclosing adverse events, and be open to ways that can help eliminate these events. These settings can then deal appropriately with these situations and determine what was the cause of it. Another factor that is mentioned is “Understand Patient Needs”(Canadian Medical Protective Association et al., 2012, p7). This emphasizes the importance of communicating with the patient after an adverse event occurs. Adverse events should be disclosed to the patients by the healthcare providers if they are required to under legislation. The last section explains the importance of education to stop adverse events from happening and can be used to help improve the health literacy section. Healthcare providers should all be trained and properly educated, as well as aware of the legislations and quality improvement reviews regarding this issue.
 * I think that the section that talks about understanding the clients needs can be added to the section about communication because it recognizes the importance of a healthy and strong client-nurse relationship. Also in the wiki article, it does not talk about what happens after an adverse event occurs so I think it would be in our best interest to have a small part about that. It would explain the importance of disclosing events to patients and talk briefly about communication and how it can help when in this situation.

Summary #1: Canadian Incident Analysis Framework

Citation: Incident Analysis Collaborating Parties. Canadian Incident Analysis Framework. Edmonton, AB: Canadian Patient Safety Institute; 2012.

This is a framework that is designed to assist learning, and quality improvement in response to patient safety. It can be used to determine how and why the incident happened, what can be done to prevent it from reoccurring, what was learned and how that can be shared with others. It mentions how patient safety requires healthcare organizations to build and keep up a safety culture. Positive patient safety culture is based on communication and shared perspective of the importance of safety. A safety culture includes openness, honesty, fairness and accountability. The reporting of incidents and safety hazards is important and it supports safety training and preparedness. The framework also mentions some communication related questions to ask during incident analysis are: -	Was the quality and quantity of communication (verbal and/or written) between team members appropriate (clear, accurate, relevant, complete and timely)? -	Were there regular team briefings/debriefings about important care issues? -	Were the communication channels available and appropriate to support the needs of the team (e.g. email, pager, and phone)?

--Tania (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Summary #2 :Teamwork and Communication in healthcare

Citation: Teamwork and Communication Working Group. Improving patient safety with effective teamwork and communication: Literature review needs assessment, evaluation of training tools and expert consultations. Edmonton (AB): Canadian Patient Safety Institute; 2011.

This article focuses on how teamwork and communication are the main components of patient safety in healthcare. As an introduction, it defines communication, team and teamwork. It also mentions the concept of safety culture (what characteristics define a positive safety culture). Then the article divides into subunits: 1.	Team Training In Healthcare (I did not feel this part of the article was useful for our purposes, it focused more on teamwork than communication) 2.	Specific Tools To Improve Team Processes -	Describes many tools that can be used to improve team training as well as actual practice such as hospitals, home care, etc. Most of them categorize under communication strategies. For instance, Briefings (basically a checklist that is looked at before a procedure is done) help the team work together and make sure all the professionals are on the same page. They are quick and provide the important details of the procedure. This communication strategy prevents delays and interruptions and can be useful when a patient is being transferred from one team member to another. Another communication technique that I found to be important is “SBAR” which stands for Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation. Situation: the topic of the discussion is formed Background: Any information that is crucial for the physician to know in order to make a decision for the patient (medication, vital signs) Assessment: the patient’s situation and status is reported Recommendation: the individual offers what they think should be done in the situation. This technique is also similar to a checklist but can be very useful during physician and nurse interactions.

3.	Changes in The Culture There is no common definition of patient safety culture but it consists of the following; -	A shared belief that healthcare is a high-risk -	A commitment to detect and analyses patient injuries and near misses -	An environment that balances the needs for reporting of events and the need to take action

--Tania (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Summary #3 :Safety in Home Care

Citation : Safety in home care: Broadening the patient safety agenda to include home care services.Edmonton, AB: Canadian Patient Safety Institute; 2006.

Most of this article focused on home care and the different components influencing safety in home care. Communication is an important factor in terms of patient safety. It is also one of the main issues in home care. After interviewing many patients and families, there seems to be a trend that it is challenging for the provider (nurse, doctor, etc.) to get involved in therapeutic conversations with the client, the family and also the caregivers about their health especially about safety issues. The coordination and communication between different providers, mostly organizations and sectors- specifically the range of care- has an influence on the patient safety. In particular, the documentation and the lack of sharing client and family information.

The theme I noticed in all of my sources is that positive patient safety culture is important when it comes to patient safety and it is the most dependent on communication. The health care providers must be on the same page and have a similar perspective in order to obtain safety of the patient. A positive safety culture should have honesty and fairness. This is in case of a mistake or if something does not go the way it was planned, it can be taken care of in a respectful manner. Another theme I noticed in two of the three sources is the use of different communication strategies such as briefings and SBAR to improve communication and prevent delays or any accidents.

--Tania (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey all, I would first like to thank Basie for helping our group clear up the issue of our talk page being linked with the main content page of our assignment! Really appreciate it.

Also, I would like to apologize that my source summaries are being posted later than others. Unfortunately I did not have any internet set up until yesterday, as I moved over reading week. I hope this did not interfere too much with possible discussion about other summaries. Thank you all for being patient with me. Here are my source summaries:

Summary #1: The Safety Competencies 

Citation: The Safety Competencies. (n.d.). Patient Safety Institute. Retrieved October 18, 2014, from http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/English/toolsResources/safetyCompetencies/Documents/Safety%20Competencies.pdf

Summary: This article is separated into multiple domains with regards to safety competencies, however, as it pertains to communication there is a domain called "Communicate Effectively for Patient Safety". This section of the article discusses promoting safety through effective health care communication. Emphasis is placed on the importance of communication to implement good health outcomes. This article discusses that effective communication both with patients and with other health care professionals is a crucial aspect of giving safe and quality health care. On the opposite spectrum it also mentions that ineffective communication from a health care professional can lead to patient harm. This section briefly lists the attitudes, skills, and knowledge that a health care professional must have in order to be an effective communicator and as a result, it preserves patient safety. These attitudes implement what an effective communicator demonstrates, the skills implement what an effective communicator does in their health care practice, and the knowledge is what the effective communicator understands, all with the goal of keeping the patient safe. There is also discussion that supports what positive outcomes of health care and patient safety are attributed to certain types of effective communication (ex. effective non-verbal and verbal communication, effective written communication, appropriate and effective use of technology communication, effective communication in high-risk situations).

Summary #2: Best Practice Guide 

Citation: Best Practice Guide. (n.d.). Patient Safety Institute. Retrieved October 1, 2014, from http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/English/news/Documents/CPSI%20Best%20Practice%20Guide.pdf

Summary: This article is based on the concepts of sharing information on adverse events in the health care profession. I have selected this article because it discusses a crisis communication plan (how to plan effective communication) and it deals with a concept that we discussed in lecture, which is voluntary disclosure. The article suggests that effective and timely communication about adverse events will enhance public trust, benefit the public's safety and educate the public on events that can empower individuals to be self-advocates. There is emphasis that creating a good communication plan before deciding on a course of action can greatly influence the effectiveness of the action. This article also discusses the importance of maintaining respect and finding balance when dealing with patient confidentiality and self disclosure (a topic we have discussed multiple times in lecture). Through creating an effective communication plan a health care professional will be able to discuss with a client what information about the adverse event can be disclosed, and the implications that disclosing this information would have on both you and the patient (career wise and personally). The communication plan suggestions and checklist revolve around the concepts we have been discussing with regards to feedback such as appropriate time and location, context (what is being addressed), asking for permission before any disclosure, and objectives (what are you trying to achieve). All of these pertain to the preservation of patient safety in terms of how disclosure of information can effect the individual's well-being.

Summary #3: Improving Patient Safety Through Teamwork and Team Training 

Citation: Salas, E. (2013). Improving patient safety through teamwork and team training. New York: Oxford University Press.

Summary: This book discusses the adverse affects effective teamwork can have on the preservation of patient safety. It provides a more scientific study to how effective communication taught through team training can help to benefit the safety of a patient, however, for this wiki page the most important information is found in chapters 11 & 12. Chapter 11 is specified to the benefits of teamwork and communication in trauma care with regards to how it improves patient safety. It suggests that in high pressure situations such as trauma, a key component of the preservation of patient safety is the use of effective teamwork. Effective team work heavily relies on communication skills amongst health care professionals to ensure that the patient is receiving quality care that will provide them safety during their period of compromised health. Chapter 12 is of similar substance to chapter 11, however it discusses the importance of teamwork and communication in the setting of intensive care. Since intensive care is dealing with dangerously ill patients, there is a necessity for constant monitoring. However, when there is a team of health care professionals who are alternating this continuous care, there is no room for communication errors and misunderstandings. It is critical to a patient's health and safety that their health care professionals are in constant communication with one another, more importantly, effectively communicating with one another. These two chapters are relevant to the benefits and faults of effective and ineffective teamwork, based on communication skills in specific settings of the health care profession.

After reading the three sources I have chosen about how communication effects patient safety I found that the common discussion of my novel and articles was the emphasis on the importance of communication in providing quality health care, which entails that the patient is safe. All three sources provide evidence that there is a direct correlation between effective communication in the health profession and implementing good health outcomes. From my sources I think that important information we could include in our section about communication (as I agree withAw14uw that our group should create a separate section on communication) are the skills, attitudes and knowledge necessary of an effective communicator in the health care field, which could relate to the importance of having a communication plan to implement these aspects. We should also be sure to include both the benefits of effective communication, and the repercussions of ineffective communication on patient safety because part of the wiki good article criteria is that it is neutral (not one-sided). By providing both pros and cons, this would help to maintain this criteria. The above sources I have chosen outline both sides of communication and its possible outcomes.

So far, the summaries I have read all contribute really relevant information about communication and its relation to patient safety, I think that by narrowing down on which aspects are of most relevance, we can piece together information that is critical to our communication section.

Thanks again for your patience and I hope you all enjoyed your reading week! Kayleigh 05:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)

Categories on user-space pages
Hi all! Looks like an interesting assignment. Forgive me for butting in. I just wanted to make you aware of a problem you probably didn't realise had been created.

When you copied the article onto your user page, you also copied its categories (the links right at the bottom). This made your test/sandbox version of the article show up in public categories on the main encyclopedia, where people will be searching and viewing. We try to avoid this on user pages because usually user space articles are draft versions being worked on, and are not subject to the same peer review as the main content. That's how I stumbled on your page, when I was reviewing one of the nursing categories.

Wikipedia has a note on it which you can read User_pages. I've removed the categories so it's no big deal, just wanted to make you aware for the future (and in case you wondered why some stranger was editing your page!)

All the best with the assignment. Cheers, Basie (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Editing Plans
Although this isn't really due until week after next, I think it's good to have a section where we can discuss the next steps for editing the page in sandbox.

As per Lynn's suggestion; I think we need to limit ourselves to focusing only on communication in patient safety. There isn't a communication section on the patient safety page, so perhaps our efforts will be on creating one.

I also think it would be worth wile, to have a look at re-organizing the sub-sections. That should not take very long and would improve the overall look of the page considerably. Thoughts?

--Aw14uw (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I completely agree on adding a communication section as it would help us stay focused and improve the quality of the article. I think we should look into re-organizing the sub-sections once we finish adding the communication section, as it should be our priority. However, Aw14uw, you are correct, it is not very time consuming so we should be able to get to it!

Also, in terms of location, where is it that you guys were thinking of adding the communication section? Is it simply going to be a paragraph on communication or will we have sub-topics such as:


 * Patient Safety Culture/Just culture
 * Disclosure of a Patient Safety Incident (how/when the disclosure should take place and the importance of it)
 * Cultural difference (how it affects communication?)
 * Effective Communication (verbal, non-verbal and appropriate technology)
 * Teamwork and Communication (how crucial it is for health care professions to communicate in order to avoid accidents)

After reading all of the summaries, I picked out the topics that I felt we all came across at one point or another in our research. I'm only assuming that we would be adding sub-topics but if you guys were thinking of just a paragraph or something else then let me know so we are on the same page.

If we are adding sub-topics, feel free to add or even remove from the short list I made.

--Tania (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I really like the sub-topics that you listed and I think that it will help to organize this section better and make it more clear to the reader. I noticed a lot of similarities among the sources that we all picked and I think that means that we all have similar ideas about what needs to be added and that we are on the right track! Maybe we should each take on one or two sub-topics (depending on how many we decide to add) and begin editing as soon as we can. Since most of our sources are online, we should be able to access each others sources if they contain more relevant information to our topic than our own sources. If we decide to do this, then we should probably figure out what topics we are doing very soon that way we have lots of time to write them and then review one another's before we post them. Vw13mp (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that the suggestions made by Tania for creating sub-topics is a good idea. By using sub-topics within our communication section in the article we can have a broader spectrum of knowledge about communication, especially because our summaries of our chosen resources are all of similar substance, but focused on a more specified topic. Should we add a section about ineffective communication and the repercussions as well? I'm not sure if you would like to incorporate it into others, but I think that it should be included to keep our portion of the article at a neutral standpoint. I agree with Vw13mp that we should all be delegated sub-topics, however, since it is a group effort we should write our sub-topic sections and review each others in the sandbox to ensure that any information someone else may have to offer, or a differing opinion can be collaborated into the final product. In terms of choosing the sub-topics, I feel that Tania outlined the most important ones which cover the content of our resources, thoughts on using these? So far, I am confident that the resources we have all offered could be used in each of the sub-topics suggested, which only helps to provide evidence that backs up our work (the more evidence the better!). Kayleigh 04:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey all!

For this week we are to start working on our section of the article that we want to contribute to. However, since we are creating our own section I think we should first outline the following:


 * what subheadings are we discussing
 * where do we want to place the communication section
 * how long do we want our section to be
 * who is doing what subheadings
 * what sources do we want included

How do you guys feel about organizing this information first before we start actually creating our edits? That way no one jumps in and works on something that everyone is going to disagree with (although I think we are all on the same page)!

Let me know if you guys would rather start our section another way.

Hope you all had a nice relaxing weekend after that ever so stressful week, Kayleigh 02:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)


 * Hey! I think organizing the information before starting the edits is great.

My suggestion would be to put the communication section under the Causes of healthcare error section. However, if you guys think it would be more suitable some place else, do mention it. As for the length of the subheadings, I believe it's best to stay under 200 words/sub heading, it will be more or less depending on the topic. After we divide it up and work on our own subheading, I think we will be able to figure out the best sources to use. As we work, we can put up the sources here that each one of us are using so we can make sure that our own and each other's sources are reliable. Although each one of the subheadings I pointed out earlier are important, I think we should maybe take out the "Patient Safety/Just Culture" (or we can take any other one out.. maybe Cultural difference ? -let me know which one we should delete) this way, we can divide it evenly among us and also get a chance to edit other parts of the article. We can choose any one of the subheadings listed above.

During my research, I came across Teamwork and Communication the most and have loads of saved information on it. I could take up the responsibility of working on that subtopic!

If you guys disagree with any of this, let me know so we can figure out other options.

--Tania (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a really good idea Tania! I suggest that if we are going to be removing a subtopic I would remove the patient safety/just culture section because the Cultural Difference would tie into that! Thoughts? Also I think that I have found the most information regarding effective communication (verbal, non-verbal and appropriate technology), so I would like to take responsibility for that section if that is okay?

Once we have divided the sub-topics I think we can all get a good start! Kayleigh 14:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)

I concur with everyone else RE subheading and length (aprox. 200 words per subheading). I think that communication is so important that it deserves it own section in the article. Perhaps we can put something on the article's main talk page to see what other wikipedia editors think about where on the page it should go? We should also maybe thing about an in-person meeting to divide up the subsections.

--Aw14uw (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

With regards to Aw14uw's suggestions, I am able to meet tomorrow (October 28th) right after nursing lab if that works for the rest of us? Possibly in the nursing longue because we are all in the same lab, so that is convenient. Let me know if that doesn't work for you. I think that posting to the main talk page is a good idea although, I am unsure if anyone will respond to give input as to where it should be placed (our page has not been edited in a while), but to avoid any conflict it is a good idea to try! Kayleigh 17:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)


 * I agree that we should meet up, also right after the lab works for me! I would like to take the section about disclosure of a patient safety incident if that is alright. I have a source that would be relevant to that subheading. 200 words per each heading sounds like a good idea because once we put them all together, it will be a suitable length. Lastly, to avoid any conflict I agree that adding our ideas to the main talk page will be a good idea to get other editors input. Vw13mp (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Meeting up in the nursing lounge after the lab tomorrow sounds like a good idea. I agree with Kt13us, considering our page has not been edited for a while I do not think we will get any responses but there is no harm in trying! Great idea. Tania (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi guys! Just wanted to let you know I replied to your request for comment on Talk:Patient safety. Let me know if I can be of any more help. Cheers, Basie (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As discussed in our meeting today, the sub-topics designated to each group member are as follows:
 * Effective and ineffective communication (Kayleigh)
 * Patient Safety Culture/Just culture (Aaron)
 * Disclosure of a Patient Safety Incident (Victoria)
 * Teamwork and Communication (Tania)

Kayleigh 17:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Additions to Article
I have added a new Section and sub-seciton to the article in the sandbox about Just culture.

Maybe everyone can put their suff up, we can each have a look for typos, formatting, etc. before moving it all to the main page.

If everyone has their suff up by Sunday Nov 2, we can proof it on the 3rd & 4th, and then moving it to the main page.

--Aw14uw (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea! I'll make sure that teamwork and communication part will be up by Nov 2 --Tania (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, someone replied to Aw14uw's post on the talk page of our article and suggested that instead of creating a whole new section, we should insert "Poor Communication" under the existing topic, "Causes of healthcare error". I am confused as to how that would work with our goal since we are suppose to be focusing on communication. Also, I'm not sure how we can keep our sub topics in a neutral tone while we are discussing poor communication. How do you guys think we should approach this? --Tania (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Another post was made on the talk page of the article that I believe we should take into consideration. They suggested that one of the most common causes of error is confusing patients with each other and how wristbands are used to ensure patient safety. I think this is necessary to be mentioned in the article somewhere. However, I would like to know your opinion whether it should be mentioned under communication or not? If so, which sub-topic would it fit best under? Here is a relatively short article on wristband and patient safety. If you guys find this to be unnecessary for our purposes then let me know so we are on the same page! Quality Wristband Solution] --Tania (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * [http://www.intermec.com/public-files/white-papers/en/wp-Wristband-Printing.pdf Improve Patient Safety with a


 * I think that if we were to mention using wristbands, it would fit best under the ineffective and effective communication subheading. Since Kt13us is responsible for that subheading, it would then up to her on whether or not she would like to include it. I believe that it fits under this heading because depending if they are properly used, it can be classified as an effective way of communication. Or, if they are not clearly written, it can be an ineffective way of communication. Let me know if you agree or if you think that it would belong in another subheading or perhaps not in the communication aspect at all.  Vw13mp (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Vw13mp that it fits best under my category of both ineffective and effective communication and can do my best to incorporate this into my information (which I will try to have posted tomorrow). I also think that with regards to the first suggestion made in the patient safety talk page, because our project focuses on multiple sections of communication it may be easier to stick to the original plan of creating a communication section. Although, ineffective/poor communication most definitely falls under the category that already exists of Causes of Healthcare Error, which I could mention in my sub-section, which seems like a fair agreement. Thoughts? Also thank you Tania for that information about the wristbands which I can use in my sub-section! Kayleigh 02:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)

This is great! I'm glad we are all on the same page. It seems our best bet is to create a separate section for communication. Taking other editors' suggestions into consideration, I think it would be fair if Kt13us mentions ineffective/poor communication somewhere in her subtopic. --Tania (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey all! We are almost done and so far so good! My sub-section is effective and ineffective communication (it is posted to our sandbox). I am having a hard time including all aspects that we have discussed without making it an unappealing chunk of text, because the sub-section is so broad! I did my best to put together the aspects that I found most important, if you can find ways to make it a smaller piece of text (ex. take some information out) please feel free to, or suggest ways to improve overall, I would really appreciate it! I did not include the section on wristbands in health care, because as I said, it was getting to be a lengthy piece of information.. do you think it could possibly be added somewhere else? Thanks for your thoughts Kayleigh 23:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)

Also, I feel that my sub-section best fits at the start of our communication section. Before I adjust this, does anyone else have another suggestion for placement? Kayleigh 23:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)


 * I agree with Kt13us that the subheading, Ineffective and Effective Communication should be first, as it is introducing the communication aspect of patient safety. Then Teamwork and Communication, Patient Safety Culture and lastly Disclosure of a Patient Safety Incident. If you were still considering inserting something about the usage of wristbands in this article, I think that it would fit best in the 'Causes of Healthcare error'. Perhaps under the system failures or human errors. It could be categorized as both because although it is a human error when the information isn't printed out neatly causing others to misread something, but it is also a failure of a system, which is patients wearing wristbands. Or, you could just mention that ineligible writing could be a human error and use wristbands as an example. Vw13mp (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Kt13us, your subtopic was definitely broad but I think you did a great job of not going off track and including all the key points. This is pretty minor but I think if you spaced out the paragraph a little (maybe break it into two), it would make it easier to read. Also, I compeletely agree with the order of subtopics that Vq13mp has posted. I'll go ahead and make that change. --Tania (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions Tania, I completely agree that my subheading should be split into two paragraphs so it does not read as a chunk of text, though I'm having a hard time deciding what information could be grouped into separate paragraphs.. any suggestions? Kayleigh 18:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)

I have divided my subsection into two, so that the methods of effective communication have their own paragraph. Do you all agree with this way of breaking it down from a chunk of text? Kayleigh 19:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)

Edits are now on the live page - further editing should be done there. Discussion can be on the article Talk page. --Aw14uw (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you feel that maybe we should add a photograph for our communication section? It would help our section to fit the overall good article criteria. Kayleigh 23:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt13us (talk • contribs)

As I read over the feedback that we have gotten recently, it is all positive with very little to change. However, there were a couple of things that people pointed out that could easily be fixed. First, we could add a picture or two. It is really simple and I think could benefit the visual appearance of the article. It was also mentioned that it seemed like we were giving advice at times. So we should read over each of our passages just to make sure that all of the information present stays away from offering advice. Someone also pointed out that the pronoun ‘we’ shouldn’t be used because it should always remain in the third person. Lastly, someone said that we would benefit from actually introducing our sources a bit in our passages to help the readers understand what we are referring to. So if we find somewhere that fits, we can just add it in and it will be beneficial to the readers. Vw13mp (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Vw13mp, most of our feedback requires minor changes. I believe we have edited and refined our article according to the feedback received. Adding an image for the readers would be extremely helpful and I believe Kt13us will be uploading the image as mentioned earlier today. --Tania (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! After many attempts and lots of time spent trying to find images that were free use for public domain (that I could actually give an author of the image for) I've found one and posted it! Let me know what you guys think, it is an older image but conveys nonverbal communication through facial expression. I agree with Tania & Vw13mp that suggested changes were minimal, the big ones being tone and addition of an image. I also just want to say that I'm proud of the work we've put into creating this section of the article, and I think we have improved the article overall which was the goal of this assignment! I'm satisfied with our edits, as long as we make these few minor changes (an image is now uploaded), I think this is a job well-done :) Kayleigh 05:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)