text:
Talk:Intensive care medicine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 March 2020 and 28 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maryhan17. Peer reviewers: Brightlybright.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 November 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lesmpremd. Peer reviewers: Segregg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite
Not a full rewrite, I just wanted to help get rid of some of the Portuguese words hanging around there. The article now looks mostly readable, but I don't know if it's correct. It'll need to be fact-checked; In the mean-time, it can stay up, although it should be tagged. It's 12:09am over here, so someone else will need to do that. I need some sleep :) -74.120.133.109 04:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

History Section
This really needs a rewrite. Jvbishop 18:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Dandy section has no bearing on this article at all. It's a history of Dandy's medical education and career, some intersting stuff on early neuroangiography but nothing on intesive care medicine. I don't see the point. bobglickman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobglickman (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What does this say?
This paragraph makes little to no sense. It needs, at the least, a serious grammatical rework by someone who knows the subject. I can't even tell what the first sentence is supposed to say:

The Unit of Intensive Therapy is idealized as Unit of Monitoração of serious patient through nurse Florence Nightingale. In 1854 it is initiated war of the Criméia in which England, France and Turkey declares war on Russia. In precarious conditions, it passes to exist high mortality between the hospitalized soldiers, reaching 40% of deaths. Florence and more 38 volunteers leave for the Fields of Scurati, become incorporated it the attendance and mortality falls for 2%. Respected and adored, Florence becomes important figure of decision, being reference between the combatants. However, the destination reserved it a great blow when it contracts tifo and it remains with serious physical restrictions, returning in 1856 from the Criméia. Disabled to exert its physical works, formation of the school of nursing in 1859 in England is dedicated to it, where already she was recognized in its professional value and technician, receiving prize granted through the English government. It established the School of Nursing in the Saint Thomas Hospital, with course of one year, was given for doctors with theoretical and practical lessons. Florence died in 13 of August of 1910; leaving legacy of persistence, capacity, compassion and devotion to the next one, it established the lines of direction and way for modern nursing. 75.4.161.6 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Need experienced input
This article needs input from someone with either knowledge in intensive care medicine (ideally an intensivist or ICU nurse), or someone with access to literature on the subject. The article has many presumptive lines and it often reads like someone who has had a bad experience in ICU is writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick30790 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done
To all who have help to fix up this article over the past few weeks well done. You have turned it from what seemed an extremely biased, negative piece into a much more informative article. However, despite the improvement, there is more to be done. May I once again recommend we find someone who has literature on ths subject. This person may like to include some information about the medicine of ICU, for example the objectives, in more detail. Perhaps talking about the goal of regaining homeostasis in the patient could be included. If this is not done in the next few weeks it is possible that I can obtain some literature on the subject through a university medical library when I return to uni in march. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick30790 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

High dependency unit
High dependency unit redirects here but isn't mentioned until the following line:
 * Intensive care usually takes a system by system approach to treatment, rather than the SOAP (subjective, objective, analysis, plan) approach of high dependency care.

This needs fixing - if they're different (as the line above says), then there should be something in the introduction explaining the differences, or HDU should have a separate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.248.169.208 (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

comment
This section was no help at all.

In the UK (and I'm not sure if it's just in the UK), an Intensive Care Unit is a part of a hospital where people with very serious medical recovery issues are put. Patients generally receive attention every 5 minutes, as opposed to every 30 minutes in other sections.

Intensive-care medicine? Never heard of it. Not what I'm after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.133.79 (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ICM as a specialty in the UK
In 1996 the UK Government suggested that critical care medicine should become a medical specialty in its own right: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4006459 (perhaps a suitable source). JFW | T@lk  13:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

External links removed
I am putting a set of external links that were removed here. Some may be of value to editors or readers. Opening discussion of possible re inclusion. I personally think the EL section was too long and removing these links was appropriate. I think the article could be improved using information from some of these sites, they would then be listed in references pointing readers to them. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Critical Care Reviews
 * International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine
 * ICU Management - The Official Management and Practice Journal
 * ICUsteps - Intensive care patient support charity
 * CCN - A peer-to-peer forum for intensive care clinicians
 * Critical Care Mailing List

RE: Need Experienced Input
Hi, I'm currently taking an abnormal psychology college course and while I'm not experienced with ICU/CUU, I thought this tidbit of information was pretty relevant:

ICU/CCU psyhcosis is a syndrome common in intensive care and cardiac units where patients who are in unfamiliar, monotonous surroundings develop symptoms of delirium (Maxmen & Ward, 1995). This may include interpreting machine noises as human voices, seeing walls quiver, or hallucinating that someone is tapping them on the shoulder.

A wikibook on Intensive Care Medicine
Dear all, I have started a wikibook on Intensive Care Medicine. Please feel free to author.--Balaji.md au (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Med Student Work Plan
I believe that the bones of this page have started well. There is helpful information that looks to address many aspects of intensive care. I am participating in a wikiproject medicine course and will be editing aspects of this page. I first would like to include citations and review information already on the page with the goal of ensuring we are providing accurate information to anyone that may refer to the page. I plan to elaborate on the critical care team and professions involved, with their certification and education process. I would like to create a section and header that gives the types of intensive care unit types and classifications. A refinement of common equipment and further delineating equipment from common medications. The plan would add information to the intensive care overview section and create a section for other considerations not addressed in the already created sections. The plan includes re-organization of the organ system section with links to corresponding wikipedia pages. I will use sources from pubmed, clincal key, lexicomp, uptodate and access medicine for information. The edits will attempt to avoid medical jargon and use language that can be understood by the lay person. The page will be peer reviewed and with the help of the online community should produce a source of evolving information.--Lesmpremd (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan! --Emilybrennan (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes sounds good indeed, please feel free to update the article, you can also check my practical tutorial on medical articles edition Thank you for contributing! --Signimu (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to delete the sentence about veterinary medicine. It doesn't seem to fit well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesmpremd (talk • contribs) 01:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)  Lesmpremd (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
@Lesmpremd - I think this article is overall well written and gives helpful information about intensive care medicine. I particularly enjoyed reading about the history. I think that it is a very approachable article for non-medical readers, and it does not use too much jargon. I do think that a helpful thing might be expansion in the common equipment sections about what the listed items are used for, and why those items are typically used mostly in ICUs. It may also be helpful to have a section about commonly performed procedures in ICUs if possible. I also noticed that there are a number of facts about ICU mortality and ICU delirium in the "Intensive Care Medicine Economics" section, which should probably be moved to its own section. There is a sentence in that section about delirium that is not cited correctly too. I enjoyed the history section, but the most recent history could be expanded and the history section is a little light on citations (especially about Nightingale) so it may be helpful to add some if any sources about the history are available. In terms of neutrality, I think that this article is balanced and does not push any particular viewpoint. -Segregg (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree there are no citations in the florence nightengale section. I was unable to find any to support the statements previously made before I began editing the page. I was hesitant to delete the section because it is a decent amount of information. If anyone knows where this information comes from I would really appreciate citation assistance. I understand what you mean about the economics section and have tried to better organize the information. I also added a section that was for "other considerations". Thank you for identifying the citation that was not working as well, this has been fixed. I believe that adding a few common procedures like central lines, echocardiograms, EKGs, bronchoscopy, and ultrasound would be helpful. I would be concerned about how much detail needs to be included to be considered adequate. Thank you for all of your suggestions. They were helpful and I look forward to using your recommendations to further improve this article. Lesmpremd (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This may be helpful in your quest for sources about Florence Nightingale. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

UCSF Wikipedia Elective Plan
Hello, I will be editing this article as part of a course at UCSF School of Medicine. My goals are to:

 * streamline language of article
 * incorporate up to date literature
 * expand on the Investigations section
 * expand on the Treatments sections
 * create a section listing complications in the ICU

Timeline:

 * March 6: Literature review, collect sources
 * March 11: Identify critical themes, finalize new sections in article
 * March 18: Write new sections, incorporate sources
 * March 23: edit for grammar, structure, clarity of language
 * March 27: Course wrap-up

Maryhan17 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review for Maryhan17
Lead

 * Accurate and concise. Could include more information to reflect the great edits added to monitoring/treatment section.

Article

 * Good organization and language. Good job focusing on specific sections and improving them. I think the breakdown of different organ systems is excellent. This section may benefit from an introduction into why these specific procedures are listed. Good use of lists and concise wording to describe different procedures.

 * Clarification between open/closed units is clear.

References

 * Would benefit from more citations, seems like your main critical care source is extensive enough to use throughout.

Overall great progress on building on the existing article. Look forward to your further additions of delirium/telemedicine. Brightlybright (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Intensive care medicine


text: User talk:212.135.1.84

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:212.135.1.84


text:
Talk:Emergency medicine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Briahernandez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Heading
First Emergency Care is done by many other physicians that do not need to be board certified by "Emergency Specailists"   from Primary Care to Tertiary Care  there are also important Emergency Medical Sevices! An all should better cordinate themselves in an whole Integrated (Public Health) Emergency Medical System.

Second The big problem in "EMS" with the american restricted sense, is the tendency of demedicalization in the sense of non participation of Care Medical Professionals, in the sense of Freidson Definition of a Professional.

In many Jurisdictions prehospital-ambulance care providers are evolving toward independent practice and even they call it Paramedecine! . They may have limited contact with other health care providers and can develop more allegiance to security service agencies, such as the police and fire services. The Canadian AAEMSP believes that collaboration between emergency medical technicians and knowledgeable, committed physicians providing medical control and regulation  is essential for the provision of high-quality care based on sound, current scientific knowledge. Our belief, and that of others, is that abdication of or exclusion of physicians from this role increases the risk of conflictual, inappropriate, cost-ineffective and potentially dangerous prehospital medical care.

ABEM vs BCEM
I just read your content on Emergency Medicine, the content appears to have a distinct bias toward the the ABEM. It is obvious that your editors don't have insight into to ongoing controversy in emergency medicine,board certification or the current physician workforce in the United States. This article misinforms the public and misrepresents the facts. Your free encyclopedia service has been used for spin and political gain. The question is who wrote this "crap"..."Patients should be wary of anyone who represents themselves to be "Board Certified" in Emergency Medicine, but the board is not ABEM or AOBEM. The problem of Sham board certification is not unique to Emergency Medicine, and patients should be careful to check that any physician be "board certified," by one of the medical specialty boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties or the American Board of Physician Specialties. As mentioned the ABPS certification is controversial." Here are some facts your article did not contain.....Information from Emergency Physicians' Monthly newspaper Vol.8, No.9 Sept.2001 p.19 (Katz Report)

ACEP Statistics (and information accumulated by Katz) ~32,000 EP's in USA currently ~17,300 are ABEM boarded ~1,078 are AOBEM boarded <12,500 are EM residency trained Given these numbers:

~13,622 EP's in practice currently are not ABEM or AOBEM boarded = 42.5% ~19,500 are not EM-residency trained (~61%) Status of BCEM certification- In February 2002, the Florida Board of Medicine made a specific finding of fact that AAPS:

. . . is a legitimate and bona fide organization, whose specialty certification boards have been providing recognition to allopathic and osteopathic physicians for over fifty years. In order to obtain specialty certification, licensed physicians must meet rigorous requirements of the appropriate certification board. Eligibility requires advanced training, significant experience, good moral character and successful completion of a specialty examination. In addition, in order to maintain such certification, every physician is required to complete recertification every eight (8) years.

The Florida Board of Medicine ultimately concluded that AAPS should be granted approval as a specialty recognizing agency. As a result of the Board of Medicine’s action, any AAPS allopathic board certified Diplomate may now hold himself or herself out to the public in Florida as a board certified specialist.

Commonly Touted Myths-

Myth: ABEM (or AOBEM) - certified physicians provide a higher quality of care than non-ABEM/non-AOBEM-certified emergency physicians. Reality: There are no valid studies that demonstrate a difference in outcomes between those with ABEM/AOBEM certification (including those with emergency medicine residency training) and those denied access to these exams, but who are practicing high-quality emergency medicine. Myth: ABEM/AOBEM-certified physicians reduce the risk of malpractice claims against hospitals. Reality: There is no evidence to support this notion either. Generally, practice experience plays a more important role in ensuring quality patient care than any limited specialty certification test. (For example, the ABEM exam is required once every 10 years, and BCEM is required once every 8 years in ordered to retain certification. That is why many groups/organizations are moving towards the idea of “Continuous Certification”, including methods of Practice Assessment.) Myth: There is a shortage of ABEM-certified physicians, thus justifying their higher salaries (compared to non-ABEM-certified physicians). Reality: The shortage of ABEM-certified physicians is artificial, created by the closure of the practice track (quite prematurely). This shortage has increased the real and perceived value of these physicians and may be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (see Daniel et al. v. ABEM et al. Civil Action No. 90-1086A, U.S. District Court for Western District of New York). In addition, funding for EM residencies has decreased, resulting in less EM-residency trained physicians graduating annually. EM-residencies are not given the same funding for a physician who has had a previous residency (as they do for obtaining residents fresh out of medical school), making it very difficult for a practicing physician to obtain a spot in an EM residency. There are several EM fellowships available in the US (primarily for family physicians), but these are quite limited. Add to this that anecdotally, many physicians in practice will testify that many of the best EP’s in practice in their hospital ED’s are not those that are EM-residency trained or board certified in EM. Myth: Physicians who are not EM-residency trained or ABEM/AOBEM-certified are “moonlighters”. Reality: Surveys of non-ABEM/AOBEM certified EP’s have shown an average of 10 years of full-time ED experience. (Many of these EP’s are not certified by ABEM because they have not been allowed to sit for the exam.) Other Interesting Information-

The ABEM “practice track” (which no longer exists) required 7,000 hours and 60 months of emergency medicine practice (including 24 continuous months of EM practice) and 50 CME hour each year in practice. The BCEM exam requires (amongst other criteria) completion of an Emergency Medicine Residency -or- completion of a residency in a primary care specialty, practice of Emergency Medicine on a full-time basis for five (5) years (=60 months), and accumulation of a minimum of 7,000 hours in the practice of Emergency Medicine. [For an excellent comparison of the criteria for the three emergency medicine board exams available, see the ABPSGA web site at http://www.abpsga.org/certification/boc_comparison.html. AEP Fellowship Criteria include practice and/or teaching of Emergency Medicine for a minimum of 60 months total; and accumulated 7,000 hours total in the practice and/or teaching of Emergency Medicine; and accumulated 2,800 hours consecutively within any 24-month period of time; confining one’s practice to Emergency or Urgent Care Medicine; accumulation of 150 hours of CME credit within the previous three years of practice that is acceptable to the Fellowship Committee; and a demonstration of commitment to Emergency Medicine by active involvement in various ways. [For full AEP Fellowship Criteria, please contact the AEP Office, or see the Members-Only section.] Θ

 * Recent edits have removed some of the controversy regarding BCEM certification. Some of the convtroversy seems highly relevent (such as North Carolina rejecting BCEM as allowing the designation "Board Certified.") Interestingly enough, the above diatribe is a copy and past from the AEP.org webstie. ABEM no longer recognizes the practice track as they felt that it was not equivalent to residency training in Emergency Medicine. Since I personally have substantial bias, I have to wonder about other's thoughts.Bdolcourt 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I just came to this article to try and find out a bit more about emergency medicine and was kind of surprised by the content. Now I see why!  This whole section is more of an essay than an encyclopedia article at the moment.  I'd suggest almost all the details around these qualifications ought to come out of the article.  It's an article on emergency medicine in general - not on the controversies that the US has over qualification, or the detailed requirements of each certification process.  The bit that is most relevant to this article in my opinion is:
 * Many types of physicians may practice in an Emerency Department; however, only those who have successfully passed the board certification process are considered "Emergency Medicine Specialists". Currently the ABEM and AOBEM require a number of years of residency training after medical school, followed by comprehensive written and oral examinations. The BCEM requires (in addition to passing written and oral examinations) completion of an ACGME approved residency in an approved specialty such as Family Medicine or Internal Medicine, 5 years of the practice of emergency medicine, 10 Peer reviewed case reports, current ATLS/PALS/ACLS certification and 3 letters of recommendation from peers.
 * A sudden surge of interest in the specialty in the late 1990s was due to the popularity of the American TV series ER. Showcasing the function of a Chicago Emergency Department (loosely based on Cook County Hospital) and its many characters, the show introduced a large number of people to the specialty.

 * Obviously rewritten, with sources, a sentence about the fact that recognition of certification is on a State by State basis (at least that's what I think is implied by the North Carolina reference above), and - if US physicians generally agree this is a significant controversy - a mention that there is controversy. The rest should go into other articles - possible one on each type of certification, or  Emergency Medicine as practiced the USA - linked to from this article.  Just an idea from a reader.  -- Siobhan  Hansa  17:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How come there's nothing in the article specifically about emergency nursing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Recent changes
All sources must be cited, and while you may think summarizing is good remember that the only time that is needed is if the article is difficult to read or it is in the intro. Also, the recent changes have a poor word choice. Aaron mcd (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Member Organizations
The bullet-point list of organizations and certifying bodies has good info, but is too long and busy. Additionally, each of the organizations is a distinct entity that could have its own article. I'm condensing the list and breaking out the articles or merging info into the appropriate existing articles, if any. - Draeco (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I created a draft article on one of the member organizations: Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Please provide feedback if possible. Thank you. Seablue86 (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Work
This section needs to be modified for a more international point of view. Work situations in the UK, Ireland, Canada and the EU are very different from the United States, this is not currently represented here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.125.154 (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Occupation Image
If we are pointing the image of an emergency doc towards a building, we are failing. Let us point an image towards an actual person doing the job. Better illustration in this. I have improved the image. 400 Lux (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Financing and practice organization
3.1 Reimbursement 3.1.1 Compensation 3.1.2 Payment Systems 3.1.3 Overutilization 3.2 Uncompensated care 3.2.1 EMTALA 3.3 Care Delivery in Different ED Settings 3.3.1 Rural 3.3.2 Urban 3.3.3 Patient-Provider Relationships 3.3.4 Medical error

5.8.1 Funding for Training 16gb (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)16gb

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Emergency medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101119080037/http://medicine.yale.edu:80/emergencymed/whatis.aspx to http://medicine.yale.edu/emergencymed/whatis.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112033631/http://www.acem.org.au/infocentre.aspx?docId=1251 to http://www.acem.org.au/infocentre.aspx?docId=1251
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227222859/http://www.cfpc.ca:80/English/cfpc/education/examinations/emergency%20medicine/default.asp?s=1 to http://www.cfpc.ca/English/cfpc/education/examinations/emergency%20medicine/default.asp?s=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Emergency: Infobox
Please add "Infobox medical intervention", especiaylly MeshID, if any. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.46.105.167 (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

To add 2 books under further reading
Hi I would like to add 2 books under further reading: These are the 2 textbooks for EM in India and South East asia and Dr Judith Tintinalli has written the Foreword for the book. Please do let me know if it can be added in further reading.
 * Editor-in-chief – Clinical pathways in Emergency Medicine. About 115 Chapters, 2000 pages, in 2 volumes – Springer Link International Publications –.
 * Editor-in-chief – Textbook of Emergency Medicine. About 264 Chapters, 2432 pages, in 2 volumes – Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; India Original edition (Nov 1, 2011).

Thank you Yourgirl (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why these two books specifically? I notice that so far 100% of your edits relate to the author of these books. Do you have some professional or personal association with him? - MrOllie (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yourgirl (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for the reply, I do not have any personal association with him. Emergency is a speciality which is still developing in India. I am in the field of emergency medicine. I am creating a page on the author that is the reason my edits are on this author. And this is the only EM textbook by an Indian author. You can read the foreword by Dr Judith herself.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emergency medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://medicine.yale.edu/emergencymed/whatis.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cfpc.ca/English/cfpc/education/examinations/emergency%20medicine/default.asp?s=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509092955/http://www.aep.org/ to http://www.aep.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Merging /Emergency medicine/ with /Intensive Care Medicine/
The page here for /Emergency medicine/ is very similar in style and essence to /Intensive Care Medicine/, so I am proposing that we either merge the two, or delete one of them.

Wiki Education assignment: English 1101 033
— Assignment last updated by Mhalldow (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hit with a bottle
I got jumped and hit with a bottle I had stitches and it’s left a scare on my face 2A02:C7C:302C:6800:3886:5C13:DD5D:A762 (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Emergency medicine


text:
Talk:Neurology

More emphasis
More emphasis should be put on research of morphology and physiology of the nervous system. -- Eleassar  my talk 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't agree; most neurologists who do this nowadays possess other qualifications. The historical aspects of that might be of some interest. -Ikkyu2 16:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking into history right now. I'll see what it says. Newtonspeed 03:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Undergraduate experience
I'm changing that part about some US medical schools admitting students after 2 years of undergraduate. I've never heard of any such schools, no such schools are cited, and even if it's true it is of vanishing significance to anyone who wants to know about the education required to become a neurologist. For all intents and purposes, it takes 12 years of post-secondary education to become a neurologist, and the article should reflect that. 71.72.97.136 (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the emphasis on educational length should lie in how long it takes to be a neurologist after completing medical school. Everyone know the criteria for getting admitted to med.school and how long this education is in it self, so the more interesting part here is how long it takes to specialize in neurology and thus become a neurologist. In contrast to cite ones total school path... eg. 25 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.109.128 (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Harder to help
Neurologists find it more difficult to help those whose symptoms are not attributable to organic disease:. JFW | T@lk  09:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

MRI as a nuclear medicine technique???
That is incorrect, nuclear medicine is another specialty altogether and does not use MRI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elikarag (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The image is too larger for the primary page
The GIF image is to large (~5Mb) to have on at page - rather reffer to it, so people can chose to view it themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.87.164 (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Field of work
Neurology needs a cleanup. The list of "major" conditions has no evident structure, redundant content, and perhaps should be replaced by a link to Category:Neurology. This is the section where the difference between a neurologist and a neurosurgeon, and how these specialties work together, should be explained. --Una Smith (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 * good point - it is simply a smaller list than that found at the page list of neurological disorders. I'll change it. Amaher (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Neurology a part of Phisiology ?
If Neurology is the studying of the nerves and Phisiology is the studying of the phisical part of living creatures. Then doesn't Neurology become a sub-category of Phyisiology ? Alan347 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Neurology as the studying of the Nervous System
Does Neurology study the nervous system per se. or only its disorders ?

" is a medical specialty dealing with disorders of the nervous system. Specifically, it deals with the diagnosis and treatment of all categories of disease involving the central, peripheral, and autonomic nervous systems, "

or

" is a medical specialty dealing with the nervous system. It also deals deals with the diagnosis and treatment of all categories of disease involving the central, peripheral, and autonomic nervous systems, "

Thanks, Alan347 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Neurology is a branch of medicine -- the term for the study of the nervous system is neuroscience. The general public frequently confuses the two, but people in the fields are very consistent in using the words this way. Looie496 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I had the same question. I accept your response, but I think it should be included in the article. Perhaps a sentence (at the end of the intro?) such as "Neurology is the medical application of neuroscience which is the (general?) study of the nervous system." Dirac66 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 * It is also the study of the nervous system and form and function:

neurology (njʊˈrɒlədʒɪ)

the study of the anatomy, physiology, and diseases of the nervous system

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 Cite This Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenmitchell (talk • contribs) 10:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This page should generalize neurology as a study of the nervous system. However, there is too much about neurologists and their qualifications. Instead of focusing on a single thing that can easily have a page of its own (if not already) there should be less on neurologists and more on the different studies and branches of neurology, as well as recent advances in neuroscience. Eeshprince (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The study of the nervous system is neuroscience. Neurology is specifically a branch of medicine.  The two are frequently confused, but that doesn't mean that we should do it. Looie496 (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I made this distinction more clear by moving the line about it earlier in the introduction Skiingxmoose (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Salary
I have removed the average salary figure as it is not cited and is very ambigous. The salary varies greatly from country to country, among other things. --62.57.165.141 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Neurology vs. Psychiatry
With all due respect for Dr. Joseph Martin, his assertion "And the fact [sic] that the brain and mind are one makes the separation artificial anyway", cited in this article, seems to be based on personal belief, rather than hard scientific facts, and therefore it has no place in an article dealing with science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.26.99 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The word mind has many meanings so I think it does not have "hard scientific facts" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcascas (talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Cosmetic" Neurology
I think this title/term should be changed (to "Neurological enhancement" or "Neurology for enhancement purposes" or "Augmentative neurology", for example). The word "cosmetic" refers to appearances, while the topic itself is about improving brain function. If someone had severe depression, would we consider that a "cosmetic" problem? --Rbwilli (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Affinity with detective novels
10.1136/practneurol-2013-000597 - quite an overlap, quoting Conan Doyle and Sacks. JFW | T@lk  16:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Training
It would be interesting to know about training in neurology by country. Maybe someone with knowledge about opening new pages and interest in neurology could do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcascas (talk • contribs) 09:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Like many WikiPedia articles about medical specialties, we are told that American neurologists start off with a four year college degree followed by a four year MD course. This obscures the fact that the compulsory pre-medical courses in college are at first or second year level and at the same level as would be studied at school in countries like England, France and Germany. The rest of the college course is optional for an aspiring doctor and does not contribute to medical education.

 * This exaggeration of the university element serves also to take readers' eyes off the brevity of American clinical training compared to the rest of the world, and American neurologists' limited exposure to internal medicine. This is not compensated for by a greater psychiatric background: despite there being a combined certifying board for diplomas in neurology and psychiatry, there is little overlap in training between the streams.

 * The section about British training absurdly states that medical school takes five to nine years. When most students spent their first year on physics, chemistry and biology, six years was the norm, but now that they have to get that out of the way at school first, five years is standard for an MB ChB or equivalent. Nine years could mean doing an extra year for an honours BSc in one of the sciences, followed by three years doing a PhD: that should not all be counted as medical education. Graduates can take a shortened, more intensive four year course for the same medical degree, but since their original degree could be in anything else, the length of the first degree should not count as medical education. NRPanikker (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Historical Section
To quote the Wikiproject Neuroscience page, "The history of neuroscience will also be an area of focus. The progress of theories and ideas is important to understanding current scientific thinking. This includes "History" sections in articles, biography articles, articles on refuted theories, and articles about historical institutions. For people interested specifically in contributing to the history of neuroscience content, visit this page." I think one hugely important thing this article is lacking is a section on the history of the practice of neurology. We would need to answer the questions: when did neurology develop as a field? who are the founders of the field? and when did it enter mainstream culture? Skiingxmoose (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

vs. Neuroradiology
How does it relate to neuroradiology? —DIV (120.17.143.250 (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

title: Talk:Neurology


text:
Talk:Obstetrics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alejandra Navarro Rosado. Peer reviewers: Paola.Franco-Negron, Carla R2D2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup request
For for such an important topic. Perhaps some parts of it should be split into other sections (antenatal care and induction, for example). If not, then the sections need quite a bit of work to flesh them out. violet/riga (t) 22 July 2005
 * This is a poorly written article. I concur it needs major rewrite and restructuring. Mirasmus 03:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Still. :(  violet/riga (t) 21:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor Cleaning
Added a few links in the Trimesters section. What does β-hCG mean? I know it has something to do with haemoglobin but a link to exactly what, or some kind of explanation would be helpful.

Also moved the references template from the talk page to the article itself. User:SaintedLegion

It has nothing to do with Hemoglobin (perhaps you're thinking of Hgb-A1C? which is form of hemoglobin measured to assess the long term level of a diabetic's blood sugar status). beta HCG is produced by the placenta and is only found in the blood (and urine) of pregnant women and rarely those with certain types of tumors. I plan on cleaning this article up a bit when I can.

Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin, I think.

Minor Comment
Human Chorionic Gonadotropin is correct.

The HCG tests used by physicians to determine if a woman is pregnant - to confirm a pregnancy, or to elimunate the possibilty of pregnacy in a woman of child bearing years who, for example, is starting a medication contraindicated by pregnancy, or who requires an X-ray - are the Beta HCG, determined by analysis of blood, and the urinary HCG, which is sold for home use,yielding a rapid result, but is less specific and less sensitive than Beta HCG... if you understand the probability associated with virtually all medical testing: A sensitive test is one which will identify the occurance or presence of an abnormality or disease substrate - such as chemical or cellular components of blood indicative of a disease state - e.g., the glucose level in diabetes; "drop out" of visible heart muscle in nuclear stress testing - indicating a diminished blood supply to that region of the heart and disease in the artery which supplies it; MRI imaging of the brain which will establish or rule out an intracranial blled- is so sensitive that it will rarely fail to confirm an abnomality, but not infrequently yield   a "false positive" result - the test may  indicate that a condition is present when, in fact, it isn't.A highly specific test is at the opposite end of the spectrum - if it is postive, it is very likely that the disease state exists; however, a negative result does not conclusively rule out the disease, but merely diminishes the physician's  index of suspicion, as the test is so specific for a particular disease substrate that it might miss low-grade, incipient indicators of an illness...producing a "false negative" test. When an emergent answer is necessary regarding the possibility of pregnacy - say, with regard to a young woman involved in a motor vehicle accident with a suspected collapsed lung, who thus needs an X-ray - the urinary HCG will have to do. When time isn't of the essence, a Beta HCG is obtained - it is, again, far more specific for the presence of a pregnacy than the urinary HCG, as well as more sensitive. As an aside, the take home message is : Don't relie on a negative urinary HCG to establish the absence of pregnacy. The urinary test is so inferior to the Beta,and is so temporally dependent on the moment of implantation, that serial home testing, over a several days after insemination or a missed menstrual cycle ( the specifics are recommended by the manufacturer) should be considered. No references are cited - I was an emergency room doctor for three years before establishing a viable cardiology practice, and I'm certified in Internal Medicine and Cardiovacular Disease...and have practiced for more decades than I want to remember.

Mitral valve stenosis risk
I'd like to add to the article - if there is a concensus among the community - one of the more dire risk factors in maternal/fetal morbidity and mortality: Mitral Valvular Stenosis. Mitral stenosis used to be primarily the result of rhematic heart disease, a sequel to rheumatic fever associated with beta hemolytic strep infections - such as "strep throat". Despite the concerted effort of our younger doctors to create antibiotic resistence in every known bacterium ( in contraversion to the fact that most upper respiratory infections are viral), RF still occurs, and an associated stenosis of the mutral valve may result, progressing over time. Endocarditis, due to poor dentition, IV drug use, or sepsis arising elsewhere which seeds the valve, is an important cause. The leading cause of mitral valve replacement is mitral valve prolapse -significant prolapse, confirmed by imaging, with very "floppy" and redundent valve leaflets ( as opposed to the universal MVP with which every woman with a vague chest complaint is told they are afflicted). This usually causes back flow of blood through the valve ( mitral regurgitation), but as it constitutes a risk factor for endocarditis, and patients at risk may not have been diagnosed and undergo a procedure - a simple visit to the dentist for a filling, which floods the circulation with pathogens - usually without any harm, just  as brushing your teeth releases a considerable number of pathogens ( don't worry about it - the body sweeps these up in immune competant individuals - poor dental hygeine is far worse ); but in the presence of significant MVP may lead to endocarditis, and in turn, MS. A women with moderate to severe MS should not conceive until a ( rather complex)strategy has been developed to releive the narrowing of the valve. As noted in the article, there is a fifty percent increase in blood volume during pregnacy, and trying to force all that volume through a snall orafice is inviting congestive heart failure and pulmonary hypertention...not an auspicious situation, and a valid reason for terminating the pregnancy if the mother's status deteriorates. This is not to say that every pregnant woman, or those planning to conceive must underco echocariography; but certainly they should expect a careful heart examination, which will reveal the characteristic murmur of MS, and comprehensive questioning by the physician.Skyraderuniform1 (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst clearly an issue of Obstetrics, that is a section on Obstetrics which probably should be more about the normal physiology of pregnancy rather than disease process. Might be better therefore under Obstetrics, but as a relatively rare issue probably better in the linked main article of Prenatal care ? David Ruben Talk 11:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Rhesus D negative
This should never be written "Rh-" = WRONG - MAY LEAD TO MISTAKES It should be always written in full "Rhesus D negataive" = CORRECT - UNLIKELY TO BE MISREAD OR CHANGED Similarly "Rhesus D positive" should always be written in full. Accuracy is important in all aspects of blood grouping.

obstetrics or obstetricians
obstetrics or obstetricians provide complex pregnancy, labour and birth and post natal care for woman who have complications. Obstetricians deal with the abnormal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.126.27 (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

 * This is a misinformed and misleading statement. OB/GYNs will generally either do both obstetrics and gynocology, or restrict themselve to one or the other. While mid-wives have gained popularity in home or hospital delivery, they are not qualified to manage any complications which may crop up. The United States has the highest infant mortality rate of all industrialuzed countries - although we don't really know why. Even so, the majority of deliveries are uncomplicated, and are performed by obstetricians. Just as there are specialized GYNs who restrict themselves to gynocologic maligmancies, there are obstetricians, working in conjunction with neonatologists and other specialists as warranted, who perform high risk deliveries. The average OB is not trained in this manner, and is not resticted to dealing " with the abnormal". Far from it...they refer high risk patients to appropriately trained OB's, usually in tertiary care medical centers. I would suggest eliminating the above remark.Skyraderuniform1 (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 * But from UK perspective not that far off, for the majority of UK NHS deliveries will be with a midwife and the obstetrician on call might never meet face to face the mother (in other units will do a brief ward round at the start of each rota shift just to "show their faces" adhead of when they might be called in). In such circumstances then yes only the non routine constitutes UK NHS practice (from maternal issues eg asthma, hypertension, gestational diabetes etc to foetal issues or concerns to labour problems). UK private practice probably follows closer the US model, although even with this in recent years private midwives often take the lead as recognised higher intervention rates when delivery lead bu Obs vs midwives. David Ruben Talk 11:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Also I imagine form the perspective of most first world countries apart from the USA. In the USA maternity care is under the control of medical practitioners and I expect that they are therefore familiar and experienced with normal pregnancy and birth.  Midwives deliver a small percentage of maternity care in the USA.  The reverse is true in other countries where midwives provide the majority of maternity care, including deliveries.  Women are usually only referred to an obstetrician if there is a deviation from normal.  Hence it is correct to say that obstetricians (outside of the USA) usually only deal with the abnormal.  Some women without obvious clinical need will elect to have an obstetrician provide her maternity care, just in case something goes wrong, but this would be expensive and the numbers would be small.  The totality of maternity care needed from discovery of pregnancy to postnatal care is such that obstetricians would struggle to provide this, at least for a reasonable cost to the women.  For example, outside of the USA, women under obstetric are would almost certainly receive most of their postnatal care from a midwife engaged by the obstetrician.

 * I would also like to correct your statement that midwives are not trained to manage any complications that crop up. It is true that their scope of practise is normal pregnancy and birth, and any recognised deviation from normal would result in a consultation or referral to an obstetrician.  However, it is common for unexpected complications to occur and midwives are of course trained to handle obstetric emergencies. Cheers. Ghipeb (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor Note
Dave,I quite agree that there are vast differences in medical praxis between the UK/NHS and the US health care delivery system.I think,to an extent,that the differences are predicated on the rather unrealistic expectations of Americans-idealistic but not very realistic from a percuniary perspective-that every American is entitled to access to medical care,and that the "care" knows no limits;that is,every testing modality that can be applied will be applied, and each patient seems to expect to walk out the door with a bag of medications,cured and rejuvinated,praising the physician's lovingconcern.Then,too,our system has developed into a paradoxical"privatized NHS",whereby business-as opposed to government-sets the limits on diagnostic and treatment options for the doctor,while the physician bears the responsability of the outcome-and faces tort litigation at the whim of the patient or family.Thus,physicians tend to employ adnvanced diagnostic methods in lieu of a reasonable bedside assessment of the patient by physical examination, to call in consultants needlessly, and to treat aggressively, using the latest and greatest in our armamentarium of surgical and medical therapies and technology.Finally, US doctors often feel compelled to do a great deal of "hand-holding",rather than medicine. Given the patient's expectations, and the pressures on the physician to avoid litigation,to merely "show the flag"-the physician popping in on rounds to show his face-would be unacceptable in the context of an Americann medical practice. In the UK,from what I understand,there is a compelling hierarchy of physicians,the Attending (or Consultant)being shown great deference and respect by the patient and the system alike,such that merely making an appearance satifies the Great Doctor's patients.The NHS doctor does not seem to occupy that exaulted position-he's in the trenches of the city or countryside,more of a technician than clinician,practicing according to the monolithic regulatory NHS.The Attending may have a private,"boutique" practice which resembles the typical US situation-what constraints are placed upon him I don't know, but my impression is that if the wealthy can pay for it,they get it. On the other hand,while economic considerations fuel both systems, US phenomenology would never accept the witholding of life saving technology from any and all comers- the UK, for example, apportioning dialysis on an as needed,and as available basis,while in the US every renal patient can expect dialysis,should it come to that.All of which is a long-winded explanation of why the OB is a part of the American pregnant woman's life from conception to delivery,while midwives are essentially used,at the patient's own discretion, by those people who advocate hoilistic medicine and have disdain for the "establishment".In all,both systems are more or less equally effective in both the delivery and efficacy of health care,just very different in how,and by whom,it is delivered.Then,of course,there is the health insurance crisis over here,the malpractice insurance crisis,the Medicare crisis...I'm sure you're aware of the imminent collapse of our system,and the waning morale of our medical community.And yes, OB's(and neurosurgeons,and others in high risk fields)work a good part of the year to cover their malpractrice costs and other overhead.Best Regards,Skyraderuniform1 (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A reasonable assessment. I think UK consultants are quite independant in clinical decision making, but comparisons with colleagues does somewhat restrain them (eg if post-op stay is significantly longer than for colleagues undertaking the same op). Likewise the relative lack of litigation concerns means we can practice what might be seen as clinically appropriate care, ordering tests only likely to be useful or free of undue side effects, without having to practice defensive medicine (but there is no absolute here and overlap with what may be termed sensible prudent caution for at least patient's sake if not the doctor looking over their shoulder). Whilst before the introduction of the NHS, those that could not afford private medical care would have sought delivery with help of mid-wife or general practitioners (my parents spent much of their younger working time attending home deliveries), there was then a shift to hospitalise labour for being safer (as monitoring and intervention become better understood, along with managed labour - ie. augmentation). I gather there was then a backlash against this medicalising (what in the majority of cases is routine normal) natural life process and so midwifery led care has become the norm - but not primarily out of cost consideration (although I'm sure govbernment looks at that aspect) but from point of view of what thought to be more appropriate. Obs therefore step in for the management of the non-normal pregnancies (but not as if sitting around not doing anything as wil lbe seeing to augmented labour cases, prenatal & postnatal inpatients needing care). Fear not re collapse of your system - since the time I was in training, the death of the NHS has been predicted as healthcare & health-technology have improved and with it extra expense. Hence at start of NHS the routine MI who survived would be initially managed at home (no angiography, no heart bypass nor CABG and what cholesterol testing?), or diabetes defined at higher threshold than now and also being less prevalent with the less overweight population in the post-war years, yet oral agents vs insulin only some years later becoming available. David Ruben Talk 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Career
i need to know more about obstetrics the salary what skill you need the perspectics and much more abot the career —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.138.72.197 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * What do you want to know, specifically. In terms of what I can understand of your question, OB/GYNs generate well above the average income considering "primary care" and specilized doctors - as a guess ( this is usually published in AMA news periodically, or Medical Economics ), I'd say the median income of an OB is around a half-million, with a range starting in the low six figures to over 1 million dollars. The "skills" you need are the skills all doctors need - competance, a solid university based training, an engaing and empathtic personality, as much experience and continuing education as you can acquire, and a willingness to sacrifice much of your private life in the interest of your patients. You should also be able to go with little or no sleep for a few days, have good manual dexterity required in any surgical field,sound judgement coupled with equanimity; and a tolerance for rediculous malpractice rates. Without intending to sound self-righteous, if your first question is about money...don't go into any medical field. Because if you're already focused on that, the 14 or so years of higher education, the medical school debt of about $100,000, and the emotional demands with which a doctor contends will defeat you...or produce an entreprenurial, uncaring doctor. We've got plenty of those already. As for what they do, the article and my comments above should give you an idea. But, please, consider your motivation.Skyraderuniform1 (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder how much of those pay rates are taken up by malpractice rates, in UK NHS across all specialities of "Consultants can earn between £73,403 to £173,638, dependent on length of service and payment of additional performance related awards" and (as far as I can tell) expect to have medical insurance premium of around £22,300-25,675. Of course private practice earns rather more (and greater insurance premium rates).David Ruben Talk 11:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing Maternal physiological changes in pregnancy
I removed the introduction to Maternal physiological changes in pregnancy from this article, because it is already found in Pregnancy, and obstetrics on the other hand is primarily to prevent changes that are NOT physiological. Of course it is useful to know what is normal in order to know what is abnormal, but that's what the link to Pregnancy is there for. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Where does this fit?
I pasted the following section here because it has the following issues which may need to be tended to before any reinsertion: Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already a section on Prenatal care. Where does this fit? Some of it could perhaps fit in complications?
 * It is unreferenced

{|class="wikitable"

Antenatal care
In obstetric practice, an obstetrician or midwife sees a pregnant woman on a regular basis to check the progress of the pregnancy, to verify the absence of ex-novo disease, to monitor the state of preexisting disease and its possible effect on the ongoing pregnancy. A woman's schedule of antenatal appointment varies according to the presence of risk factors, such as diabetes, and local resources.

Some of the clinically and statistically more important risk factors that must be systematically excluded, especially in advancing pregnancy, are pre-eclampsia, abnormal placentation, abnormal fetal presentation and intrauterine growth restriction. For example, to identify pre-eclampsia, blood-pressure and albuminuria (level of urine protein) are checked at every opportunity.

Placenta praevia must be excluded (PP = low lying placenta that, at least partially, obstructs the birth canal and therefore warrants elective caesarean delivery); this can only be achieved with the use of an ultrasound scan. However, early placenta praevia is not alarming; this is because as the uterus grows along the pregnancy, the placenta may still move away. A placenta praevia is of clinical significance as from the 28th week of gestation. The current management includes a caesarean section. The type of caesarean section is determined by the position (anterior or posterior) of the placenta.

In late pregnancy fetal presentation must be established: cephalic presentation (head first) is the norm but the fetus may present feet-first or buttocks-first (breech), side-on (transverse), or at an angle (oblique presentation).

Intrauterine growth restriction is a general designation where the fetus is smaller than expected when compared to its gestational age (in this case, fetal growth parameters show a tendency to drop off from the 50th percentile eventually falling below the 10th percentile, when plotted on a fetal growth chart). Causes can be intrinsic (to the fetus) or extrinsic (maternal or placental problems).
 * }

Obstetrics V Obstetrician
There is some confusion here between obstetrics and obstetricians A search for obstetrician redirects to this page. This confusion is not helped by the definition used. A more correct and accepted definition would be that obstetrics is the branch of medicine dealing with childbirth and care of the mother. Obstetrics is not a person and cannot have a salary. There should be a separate page for obstetricians, as there is for example for midwives.

The reference to obstetrics being a surgical specialty is also confusing and I suggest incorrect. If surgery is required during pregnancy and childbirth then it would be provided by an obstetrician. However the reverse does not apply and being in obstetric care does not imply that any surgery will be involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.196.95 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 * wow so much knowledge Mahlengwa (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * i wish I was done my studies Mahlengwa (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * i rather obstetricians Mahlengwa (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This Article Isn't Helpful
I came looking for information on what an Obstetrician does... what kind of procedures they might learn to preform, etc. Instead, I feel like I got a bunch of random other information. This is actually, for that one fact, probably the worst article I've ever read on Wikipedia. I've never been motivated to write anything about any other article I've read. I feel like I'm reading more about general pregnancy issues & tests & not how any of these RELATE to obstetrics. There's no discussion about what training is required. This is a pretty long article but most of it is stuff I could find somewhere else under another heading. I understand why some of this info is here, but I just feel like it needs to be cleaned up & more obviously relational to Obstetrics. 65.5.11.253 (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then fixit. WP:Fixit Gillyweed (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I would if I knew anything about the topic, but I don't, hence my desire to read an article about it. The article on "steampunks" is more complete, organized & sourced than this article.65.5.11.253 (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC) bmbfxggvhhnjhfghdv blv black baby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.63.204 (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

History section is not NPOV
The history section reads like a condemnation of modern medicine, a pro-midwife historical perspective. I made [|this edit] because that particular section was citing numerous statistics without a direct citation, doing so selectively with a clear agenda, and the citation being used was vague and represented a single POV on the topic. I skimmed the rest of the history section and didn't find any other blatant editorial slants, but I will come back later as similar sources are used. Smeggysmeg (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Obstetrics. This has been a very difficult RM to close, as it has been affected by recent and historical undiscussed moves. We have a nearly unanimous consensus that the current title is problematic, and most editors prefer Midwifery as the title, and reasonably so. However, a few things need to be taken into consideration:
 * This article was formerly at the title Obstetrics until it was moved here two weeks ago, on July 20, 2015.
 * The same day, the title Obstetrics was redirected to Obstetrics and gynaecology.
 * Additionally, the Midwife article was historically at the title Midwifery until it was moved to Midwife (obstetrics) on March 5, 2014. It was subsequently moved to Midwife on March 28, 2014.
 * However, Midwifery redirected to Midwife until it was directed to this article on March 27, 2015.

None of these moves appear to have been discussed. As such, until the last few months, Wikipedia had separate articles for obstetrics (this one) and midwifery (currently titled Midwife). While it is true this article has much material that's perhaps more relevant to midwifery, and I do not wish to overlook the reasonable and compelling arguments for retitling this article "midwifery", I think the easiest, most productive solution all around will be to restore the historic status quo for all these articles as it existed prior to the last few months. I would encourage interested and knowledgeable readers to look into cleaning up both articles as well as the one on Obstetrics and gynaecology. I've also moved the midwife article back to its former title Midwifery, considering the confusion this has caused; if it is to be moved again it should go through its own community discussion.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Obstetrics (Midwifery) → Midwifery – The term "obstetrics" refers to the medical speciality concerned with pregnancy and childbirth, while "midwifery" is the profession concerned with assisting women in the peripartum period. See Oxford definitions here and here, and Merriam-Webster definitions here and here. Obstetricians are not midwives, and midwives are not obstetricians. Kwekubo (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support per WP:UCN and WP:NATURAL, as per the nom. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE from 2001 to 2014, the article currently located at midwife was located at "midwifery" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is not the same "profession" than "professional". It is not the same "dentistry" than "dentist", "law" than "lawyer","physics" than "physicist", "midwifery" than "midwife", etc. Different articles for different concepts. Rodguerrer (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 * NOTE from 2003 to 2012, this article was about "obstetrics" and not "midwifery"; midwifery was added to the obstetrics article in 2012. The focus on midwifery happened during the period from 2014 through 2015. This article was renamed to "obstetrics (Midwifery)" from "obstetrics" in July 2015 -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The current article is almost entirely related to midwifery. ricmart (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rewriting this article to be about midwifery instead of obstetrics does not seem to be discussed. Changing the topic of an article without discussion, can be easily undone since it wasn't a consensus decision, by reverting to the version that was not about midwifery. The edit history of this article concerns obstetrics and not midwifery. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverting to the version that was not about midwifery and delete the contributions of multiple users for several years, that's not correct for me. Details in the answer to your same comment, lines bellow. Regards, Rubcald (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And what of the contributors who wrote about obstetrics, expecting to be working on obstetrics? Reverting to the earlier version allows us to have an obstetrics article. The contributions that converted obstetrics into midwifery can be involved in an article split, with the split contribution attribution template, and a second article at "midwifery". -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like one of the statement's examples of ownership behaviour: "I created/wrote the majority of this article. (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that)" (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR). "No one has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page... Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone... Similarly, by submitting your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) to Wikipedia, you allow others to challenge and develop them." (WP:OWN). Additionaly, I have reviewed that much of the exclusive content of obstetrics was referred to the Obstetrics and gynecology article. Rubcald (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, your statement saying that the current edits matter more, seems like OWNership. The change in topic from "obstetrics" to "midwifery" was not discussed. Such changes in other articles are frequently reverted, since you would normally create a new article instead of taking over an article for your new viewpoint and getting rid of an existing topic to create a new one. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Friend, I don't say that the current edits matter more, I maintain that all editions matter. But if you want to remove the contributions of multiple users over several years to impose your point of view, you are free to do it, luck. Rubcald (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 * oppose --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * no reasons ricmart (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 * weak oppose Though would support WP:CONSPLIT to Midwifery and Obstetrics (based on IP user's notes above) !vote should have been a comment; esp after reading Jytdog's comments below Little pob (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Midwifery is very deliberately not obstetrics. Midwifery is about the natural birth, while obstetrics includes both natural and medically assisted birth. A split is required to achieve this; much of the content could also be integrated into an article about childbirth rather than the professions involved with it. JFW | T@lk  11:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In my view, looking across WP, what we have is kind of a confused mess right now. What we have, is:
 * Midwife which is about the profession (and has a section about their role: Midwife)
 * Obstetrics and gynaecology which is pretty strictly about the medical profession.
 * Prenatal care is kind of stubby, on that topic and is about the care provided at that stage of the process.
 * Childbirth and especially the Childbirth section is the main content we have on taking care of the woman and the fetus/newborn
 * Postpartum period which is kind of stubby, about that and is about the care provided at that stage of the process.
 * This article, Obstetrics (Midwifery), it is basically an unWP:SYNCed repetition of the content that is elsewhere - it blends purely medical stuff like imaging and various diagnostic tests with what midwives do.  do you really think we should have an article focused on non-medically supported prenatal care, childbirth, and postnatal care?   fwiw, I think this article should be dissolved and its content merged into the other articles. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC) (copyedit a bit Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC))
 * No, I think we need to discuss all clinical aspects under prenatal care and childbirth, and discuss the professional aspects under the articles about the relevant professions. JFW | T@lk  08:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't repeat contents, this article assembles contents forming a concept, in this case of a profession. Rodguerrer (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Support The terms are not synonymous and Obstetrics already redirects to Obstetrics and gynaecology. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 15:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * what about all the medical (OBGYN) content in this article? What should the scope of this article be and how should it fit with others? In my view it is important that we meta-edit so that content is in WP:SYNC across WP.  I really don't see what value this article has at all....Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, edited and old version and did not see your reply. While I still agree that the name is a poor choice I think you're right. Midwife is a better article and already holds quite a bit on the responsibilities of midwifery. Most of the content, bar the history section is poor here so it could either be scrapped or merged. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 16:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is not the same "profession" than "professional". It is not the same "dentistry" than "dentist", "law" than "lawyer","physics" than "physicist", "midwifery" than "midwife", etc. Different articles for different concepts. Rodguerrer (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm leaning towards what Jytdog said: "confused mess".  A stable and sustainable resolution to this question is going to involve deciding how to adjust several articles.  For example, should obstetrics redirect to obstetrics and gynecology?  Gynaecology doesn't.  Given that Oxford defines obstetrics as "The branch of medicine and surgery concerned with childbirth and midwifery " (i.e., midwifery is a proper subset of obstetrics), should the non-regulatory aspects of that subject be split based on how (or even whether) the person assisting with childbirth is licensed?  Also, we need to decide things like whether "the subject that is studied" (e.g., the study and treatment of heart disease) and "the legal regulation of the profession" (e.g., how to get licensed as a cardiologist) should be the same or separate articles.  This is a bigger question than it seems.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * who might be interested. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 18:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

 * The difference is that midwifery isn't a medical specialty. So, with the requested move, it can distinguish midwifery from obstetrics as a medical specialty (obstetrics and gynecology) for clarity of concepts.
 * ricmart (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Support
 * Midwifery is the term most often used for the health profession (non-medical) that deals with the care of women in pregnancy, childbirth (parturition), and the postpartum period that often also includes care of the newborn (encyclopedia britannica: midwifery)
 * Obstetrics is the term most often used for the medical specialty of Obstetrics and Gynecology, not to midwifery. (enciclopedia británica: obstetrics)
 * ricmart (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 * used to be called until this year, and was in 2012, about "obstetrics" and not "midwifery". We have a separate article called gynecology from obgyn; since "gynaecology" does not redirect to "obstetrics and gynecology", wouldn't we also have a separate article on "obstetrics" separate from OBGYN and separate from "midwifery" ? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The current article is almost entirely related to midwifery.
 * The requested move doesn't prevent, subsequently, we can have a separate article on "obstetrics", separate from "obstetrics and gynecology" and separate from "midwifery".
 * With the requested move, it can distinguish midwifery from obstetrics as a medical specialty (obstetrics and gynecology), what it's priority important for clarity of concepts.
 * ricmart (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 * We are also not restricted to keeping this as it is, since we can roll back to an earlier version, before it was rewritten to be about midwifery, since it was obstetrics. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Roll back, deleting contributions of several years, it's not valid for me. Details in the answer to your same comment, lines bellow. Regards, Rubcald (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rolling back would restore a decade's worth of contributions, that concerned "obstetrics", which is most of the history of this article. "midwifery" could be split off since, the substantial part of the edit history of this article is for obstetrics. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rolling back several years, don't restore contributions, destroy contributions. Besides, that seems one of the action's examples of ownership behaviour: "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version" (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR). Additionaly, I have reviewed that much of the exclusive content of obstetrics was referred to the Obstetrics and gynecology article. Rubcald (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Disclosure : FWIW, I do not have edits from the time this was obstetrics, so I don't own/contribute any of that content. I just think this kind of article take-over is a very bad thing to accept; rewriting an article about one topic to be another is not a good way to create a new topic.
 * It is OWNership behavior to suggest that we cannot roll back articles to prior topics just because new contributions have been made. The rewriting of this article to become midwifery and away from obstetrics was not discussed, so there is no consensus violation in rolling it back to what it wasy before. Indeed, in many articles, where someone takes over and article and rewrites it to be about a different topic, they are reverted because the article was changed to be a different topic without discussion. Indeed, since this isn't a paper encyclopedia, it isn't even the way to do things, since one would normally start a new article, instead of rewriting an existing one to be about a different topic. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok buddy, I already told you what I think, if you want to remove the contributions of multiple users over several years to impose your point of view, you are free to do it, luck. Rubcald (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Support. I was not sure that the requested move was appropriate because I believe that obstetrics is also a synonym for midwifery (midwifery in other languages is known as obstetrics). However, reading the ricmart's comments, and to reach a consensus, I think the requested move might help differentiate the midwifery of from obstetrics as a medical specialty (obstetrics and gynecology). Rodguerrer (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC) (edited Rodguerrer (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Support per WP:NATURAL if nothing else--WP:UCN might apply, too. Red Slash 22:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And also--lol, why is "(Midwifery)" capitalized?? Red Slash 16:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to Obstetrics and merge most midwifery-related content into Midwife - I'm baffled why we don't have an article for obstetrics (currently it's a redirect to obstetrics and gynaecology). This article would make a decent start, but a lot of the midwifery-specific content would probably be better off at midwife. (Indeed the history section here originally came from that article.) What a mess. Kaldari (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Article has a lot of contribution to midwifery. "Midwifery" is not "midwife". The medical specialty recognized worldwide is "obstetrics and gynecology". Rubcald (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 * We can roll this article back to the 2011 version, that did not contain midwifery information. Or the 2013 version that was about obstetrics, but also contained some information on midwifery. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Nobody owns articles (WP: OWNER). Wikipedia is a work in progress (WP: IMPERFECT), the topic and scope of an article evolves over the time with the collaboration of multiple users. It's advisable improve the work of other contributors, not delete it. Remove the work of several years of multiple contributors seems to me that it would be a sneaky vandalism (WP: SNEAKY, "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages"), and i think it should and would be reverted by other editors or administrators. Regards, Rubcald (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Converting an article on "obstetrics" into an article "midwifery" also involved ignoring several years worth of contributions (about a decade's worth) to create this article out of an article about another topic. Rolling back would restore what was, after which you can split off the current content for a "midwifery" article, since the contribution history of this article is substanitally about "obstetrics", and not "midwifery" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed that much of the exclusive content of obstetrics was referred to the Obstetrics and gynecology article. Nobody owns the topic or development of an article, "work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone" (WP:OWN). Contribute, improve is different than delete, remove. Currently, the article topic refers to midwifery, so "Midwifery" is more appropiate than "Obstetrics (midwifery)" as article title. Regards Rubcald (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rewriting an article to be about a different topic isn't improving it. And counting only recent edits would seem to be a position based on OWNership. Rolling back and splitting the article, would not be based on ownership, since different topics should not be written by eliminating an existing topic, they should be written by creating a new article. WP:NOTPAPER we are not restricted in the number of articles that can exist on Wikipedia. Eliminating one topic by rewriting it to be another topic is not the proper way to write a new topic. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok friend, I already told you what I think, if you want to remove the contributions of multiple users over several years to impose your point of view, you are free to do it, have a nice day. Rubcald (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Support. Midwifery is not the medical specialty of obstetrics and ginecology, also per WP:NATURAL Rubcald (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Split' content into 2 articles, Obstetrics and Midwifery. The content is really easy to divide.  Sort out SYNCing after that is done.  Jytdog (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. We already have Obstetrics and gynaecology to describe the medical specialty. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Support.
 * This article of Midwifery doesn't should have the term "obstetrics" in the title, to avoid confusion. The term "obstetrics" should refer to the medical specialty of Obstetrics and gynecology.
 * Per natural disambiguation (WP:NATURAL, "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources")
 * Per precision (WP:PRECISION, "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.232.97 (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)  201.230.232.97 (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Support. Midwifery is for the non medical profession. Obstetrics and gynaecology is for the medical specialty. It's simple. 190.232.117.157 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Midwifery is a much more appropriate title --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split
I boldly split out content about midwifery in this set of difs and added nonduplicative content to the Midwifery article in this set of difs Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I boldly split out substantial and important information to Midwifery article from this recently moved ambiguous article from Obstetrics (Midwifery) to Obstetrics Alejgonz 01 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Can someone vet the changes by Alejgonz 01? ?--Cúchullain t/ c 12:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Changes by Alejgonz removing content from this article are here and in my view these removals were not good - that content belongs here as it involves medical diagnostic tests - that should be reversed.   Content was added back to this article here  - that was a good call, fixing a mistake I made.  Content was removed here; I am on the fence with that one and would reckon it belongs in both articles. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Changes are fine. All such information I wrote it with my user ip (86,151,122,144) for "Midwifery" when it was in the title of "Obstetrics" (changes here). I didn't write that for "Obstetrics" (as medical specialty). There's still information that I added to "Midwifery", but with the split is still in "Obstetrics". Rodguerrer (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I had no idea that all of this discussion was going on and have been working on the Midwifery article, which is a huge mess, IMO. I hope I have not been wasting my time.  Is the situation stable now and should I go on working with it?  Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the situation is stable, you can continue working in article freely. Regards. Rodguerrer (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Obstetric medicine
complete overlap Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No link to German article in left 'languages' navigation
sorry if this is the wrong way to make this point, but I was just wondering why - on such a significant lemma - there is no link to the German aequivalent in the left 'languages' section? *ponder* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.155.196 (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Obstetrics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707205101/http://www.med.mcgill.ca/mjm/issues/v01n01/fever.html to http://www.med.mcgill.ca/mjm/issues/v01n01/fever.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Obstetrics


text:
Talk:Public health

Reworked the first third of the article and the lead
I have just reworked the first third of the article after I had a video call with Tom Crook where he explained some of the overarching concepts of public health (with an emphasis on the activities in Britain in the 18th and 19th century); I have cited his book in a few places now. I realised that the lead was pretty good but that much of the content of the lead was actually not really contained in the main body. This meant that the lead was not an actual summary of the article. I have tried to improved on that now. I have set up new sections (which still need to be filled more) as follows: Definitions and purposes, 1.1 Definition, 1.2 Related terms, 1.3 Purposes, 1.4 Characteristics and components, 2 Methods, 3 Priority areas, 3.1 Original focal areas, 3.2 Changing and differing focal areas. Please note I am not an expert in public health. My background is in sanitation. So forgive me if I got anything wrong, and please help me to correct anything that is wrong. EMsmile (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have also added a paragraph to the lead which is meant to summarise the history section (not easy to do). Perhaps I put too much there now about England? please help me get the one summarising paragraph about the two history sections quite right? The lead is meant to be 4 paragraphs long and summarise the entire article. That's why I felt some summarised content about the history section ought to be in the lead as well. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think considering the 1933 Volksgesundhiet era of Public health this might be a good idea. I am currently going to write a small paragraph as not mentioning it is clear Holocaust denialism if this is not included as public/folk health Volksgesundheit was their central ideology from the inception of their political party in the pandemic year of 1920. Sorry to implement Godwin's law on this article during a time that the field is so heated but never forget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.191.25 (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Moving history of public health to a stand alone page
I think the history of public health could be expanded a lot more than it currently is able to be sitting within this article. I think changing the currenty paragraph to a brief overview and directing to a new page "History of public health" would enable it to be extended further than it currently is (e.g. as it is currently focused on the development of public health in England).

What would people think of this? So, 1) new page for "history of public health" and then 2) changing the current paragraph to a more general overview. Jamzze (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Jamzze, sorry for replying only half a year later... I am not sure if your approach would work. Keep in mind that we already have an article called history of water supply and sanitation which would overlap a fair bit with history of public health? Also, the history of public health seems to be really important to understand what it really is. Last year I had some e-mail exchanges with Virginia Berridge about this Wikipedia article. She wrote:

"It seems to me that currently it is poorly organised; is unclear what public health means; and omits much which explains why public health is as it is e.g. the post war history of the rise of lifestyle and the resurgence of epidemics; and the history of international organisations and public health agreements and targets is also notably lacking. What I’m suggesting overall is that instead of having a separate section headed history about half way through, you integrate these stages from the start- explaining how we got to where we are now-both at the national level and internationally/globally. Then you can end with an overview of the current state of play and some intellectual issues about public health." - I didn't follow up any further after that e-mail as I felt it would be difficult to "mix in" the history section that much. Hmmmm.... EMsmile (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

 * For five reasons I agree with the suggestion of for the creation of a new page for 'History of public health'. They should be read in the knowledge that I am not a medic and am still learning Wikipedian editing.
 * First, it would confine the current article to having one objective, of explaining contemporaneous public health.
 * Second, it would enable visitors who want to concentrate upon understanding the history of public health to be able to do so without being distracted by its contemporaneousness.
 * Third, as a by-product of the previous reason, it might better enable appreciations of the contributions that the heroes and heroines of public health made to it. (I declare a particular interest in the contribution of John Snow, which piqued my interest in public health in the first place.)
 * Fourth, it might enable editors with a better opportunity to communicate the current state of play of public health on a better organized platform.
 * Fifth, it might enable more visitors to better understand public health by reducing the length of the existing page to one that is more readable. John Desmond (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So... I think I'm in favour of *summary* and perhaps addition of high-level material (should we be able to find a source that summarizes developments in public health from a bird eye view). I am also in favour of improving the initial content once moved. Perhaps, ironically, the best way to summarize the content on the history of public health is to add *more* of it such that it begins to develop more of a high-level structure that is then easy to summarize (in an ideal world backed up with sources that operate at this high-level to minimise our original research).
 * However, I don't exactly agree with any of these arguments. I don't think this page should be confined to current public health because historical context can be useful in understanding what might be wrong with public health, because public health is in many ways one of the most political areas of medicine (see for example health equity, and insurance) so some societal context is of use, because we should not make too much assumptions about the reader.
 * I guess a good question is on what basis I am making this assessment and I'm not exaclty sure. I suppose I feel the content that exists at the moment in rather specific and arbitrary with the content of public health - but I do not feel that *high* level history is beyond scope. That's not really a policy based argument yet, so if there is disagreement we probably have to start digging into the details of WP:DUE.
 * John, do you have any thoughts of a *high-level* summary of the history of public health should we be able to support this with sources. This is the sort of topic I am quite interested in, but I am nervous to actually predict what I will do on wikipedia?
 * Tal pedia 20:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

New image or images for the lead
Hi User:Crossroads thanks for changing the image in the lead. I agree with you. But I am wondering if this article would benefit from a 4-image collage for the lead that could show different aspects of public health. We've got such 4-image collages in the lead for a few articles by now and I think it works quite well: sustainable energy, climate change adaptation, climate change mitigation, environmental impacts of animal agriculture, sewage treatment - to give some examples. By the way you can see in the talk archive an earlier discussion from 6 years ago about the image to be used in the lead. Interesting that it's so hard to get a good one. See also this unresolved discussion on the talk page of the sidebar for public health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Public_health_sidebar (pinging User:Jamzze) EMsmile (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think it's necessary, and it seems like it could be difficult to do. But if others want to I'm not against it. I don't think it should be represented by a pandemic though. Crossroads -talk- 23:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would be useful in order to show the main "things" that are part of public health. So far we have only this one where the caption doesn't even clearly say how this is related to public health: [[File:A_community_health_worker_conducting_a_survey_in_the_Korail_slum,_Bangladesh_(8630810827).jpg|thumb|A community health worker in Korail Basti, a slum in [[Dhaka]], Bangladesh]]
 * I think a 2x2 image collage should for sure include one image about vaccinations. An image about mask wearing would also be OK, I think - as it's so topical nowadays. Another one could be one for an anti-smoking campaign for example.
 * Something representing vaccination and the historical picture about smallpox eradication could be good. I do like the community health worker picture though the caption could be tweaked. I wouldn't like a picture of masks, it's less topical than before these days and likely to only become less so; it doesn't really deserve undue weight IMO. Your suggestion of an anti-smoking campaign would be good; another possibility would be something representing clean water supply. Crossroads -talk- 19:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your idea of an image representing clean water supply is good but I would modify this a bit and say it should be about sanitation, could e.g. be a photo of a sewer. There was a great article in the Lancet a while ago which showed that sanitation (sewers in that case) did wonders for public health in the UK and worldwide, see here. So I think we could have: 1 x community health worker, 1 x vaccination (I would use a current one, not a historical one), 1 x stop-smoking campaign and 1 x sanitation. That would be quite a nice spread. (or perhaps a combined one about water supply and sanitation could be found; might be hard - see e.g. at WASH). EMsmile (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This sounds good to me. Crossroads -talk- 02:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 * OK, I've now started a possible collage. The colours don't yet look great together. Do we want a vaccination image with a syringe or without (is polio not normally done with drops?). For the sewer example, do we want a historical image or a current one? Do we want from a wealthy country or a developing country? In developing countries it's not so much about sewers but more about on-site sanitation, see example images at WASH. Happy for anyone who has time to help experiment with the best photos for this. EMsmile (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've changed three of the images now. I think these new photos might work better. EMsmile (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added the collage to the lead now. Further improvements can be made in the live article version. EMsmile (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Of course, as you note, if we or others want to tweak it later we can. Crossroads -talk- 02:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Historical images for inspiration purposes

 * For inspiration purposes, I add here the images that were previously in the lead (the last one was never in the lead but was discussed in 2016; strange that they were all "historical"). These images are all included in the main body of the article now. EMsmile (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Race in America, sec 1
— Assignment last updated by Hxa056 (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Public health