Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Health Service/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Public vs. Private

Should we agree some guidelines on how to treat the relationship between public and private health articles? We may run into trouble with some private organisations being categorised as part of the NHS if we don't consider how to separate them. Also, private health must be considered by this project in some manner if only to redirect the issue to more relevant articles outside of the NHS project. Readers from another country won't know the difference between public & private in the UK. Any comments? Road Wizard 19:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a rubric in Category:National Health Service to make it clear that the category includes articles 'relating to' the National Health Service. do you have any particular articles in mind where you feel the categorisation might be misleading? I think as long as we make it clear in the relevant articles where and how a non-NHS organisation works with, or has intimate connections with, or influences the NHS we should be OK on this. Possible examples - King's Fund, Independent Sector Treatment Centre, Royal College of Nursing, British Medical Association - all intimately bound up with NHS, but not 'part' of it.--Smerus 07:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Reading what I posted before, I have become confused over what I meant myself :). All I was really trying to point out is that editors should be careful when they are handling health articles in the UK that contain aspects of the Private sector. Some articles are entirely NHS, some are entirely Private and then there are some which are are a strange combination of the two. I suppose that as long as editors keep this concept in the back of their minds whilst editing then we shouldn't run into too much trouble. Road Wizard 12:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The heading "public v. private" might be part of the problem. For NPOV, I was thinking along the lines that "UK healthcare: NHS & other" would get closer to a decent structural answer in the NHS project, because the top-level purpose is healthcare. I've started to make those links, along with a possible structure of main articles on the project page like NHS Institutions and Organisations where the second half includes bodies like Healthcare Commission. --Mereda 12:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agenda for Change

One of the articles I was looking for ages ago was one on Adgenda for Change, the new NHS pay scale - I couldn't find it, so today, rather than working on my blood pressure essay I started it.

--kylet 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

ah, some real pro-active roll-out, to use standard contemporary NHS management jargon. Keep up the good work - you have reminded me to take my statins this morning.--Smerus 07:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Anyone Reading this Page

I started the project just to see what help could be garnered for dealing with the NHS in Wikipedia - I am only semi-attached to the NHS myself, so all and any assistance is greatly welcomed. It's a bit difficult knowing where to start. I've entered whatever I could find into Category:National Health Service and where appropriate given them an NHS-stub. There are an awful lot of red-links in the existing articles as well. So they and the stubs give some sort of starting point. I attacked the main article National Health Service, clearing it up, making some corrections, and splitting off new articles for the devolved NHS.

What is still needed is some sort of overall structure. I guess this could start to come about through sub categories (e.g. NHS hospitals, NHS personnel, NHS Trusts, NHS Special Agencies, NHS legislation......).

Anyway, whatever you are willing to do, please do it and credit yourself here. And/or leave comments here and/or on my talk page. As others (I hope) join in, we should be able to develop a more coherent programme. I am considering ways of advertising the project - please do also spread the word yourself if you are in touch with anyone likely to be interested. Best regards - --Smerus 12:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I am going to be bold and set up a category system based alon g the suggested service lines. This will help to add momentum to the project and bring in the much needed structure. At worst, we can always recategorise later if we find the system I am about to set up doesn't work properly. Road Wizard 12:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In terms of advertising the project, perhaps the Template:User NHS project userbox will help? It lists the user as a participant of the project and adds them to the Category:WikiProject National Health Service members page. Road Wizard 17:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I have also created a tag line to add to the end of our NHS related edit summaries that will hopefully encourage involvement from others. Just copy the bold text below to the end of your edit summary and you will have an instant link back to this project. Road Wizard 00:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
NHS WikiProject - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject National Health Service|You can help!]]

[edit] A few things

Hey - am very interested in this project! Have already helped with the medical career structure box (together with smerus we seem to have got it just about covered now!).

There has been some mention on this page about NHS staff roles/titles etc. This is something I've already done quite a bit of work on (I created Consultant (medicine), Specialist registrar, Matron and Senior Registrar, and have made extensive edits on Nurse etc.). So I'm more than willing to carry on doing this. Perhaps those of us who are interested in this area could come up with a structure for these pages (i.e. categories, general layout, maybe a box linking them all?).

Incidentally, for any of you who are a little more au fait with wikipedia than I am, there is no user box for nurse or paramedic (well, not UK paramedics anyway! They have EMT-B, EMT-I and EMT-P from america), and probably a multitude of other healthcare professions - would very much like a nurse one for myself, and I'm sure our other colleagues would too!

I also agree with the comment above about the america-centric nature of alot of health service/health provision articles. There does need to be some work on highlighting the differences between the UK and the US.

Finally, a bit of shameless plug - is there anybody reading this who is interested in First Aid? Am trying to set up my own project on this! See User:John24601/Wikiprojectfirstaid --John24601 15:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Let me know (either here or on my talk page) what information you would want in a paramedic or nurse infobox and I will see if I can throw one together for you. Road Wizard 15:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was something like template:user doctor for nurses etc. --John24601 15:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread your previous post - I really need to clean my glasses :). I haven't created a userbox before, but if you want one I might as well learn now. Would you like me to use an NHS logo instead of the "star of life"? Road Wizard 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is a quick one for paramedics I threw together based on the example you provided: Template:User UK paramedic. The article link on UK paramedics hasn't been created yet so it is currently red. The user will also be placed in Category:Physician Wikipedians. Is this ok? I will get to work on a Nurse one now. Road Wizard 16:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And here is the nurse one: Template:User NHS nurse. This user box also uses the Category:Physician Wikipedians. Road Wizard 16:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Both userboxes now point to categories for their own professions - Category:Paramedic Wikipedians and Category:Nurse Wikipedians. Road Wizard 17:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • On the staff roles/titles - might it be better to put a hold on these until the new system is sorted out as many of the junior grades may change name (FY1 and all that) Adam Slack 20:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

I have created an infobox for NHS Hospitals. Does anyone have any suggestions for improvements? If we can agree what the infobox should contain, we will be able to use it as a basis for all other NHS infoboxes, thereby maintaining a consistent look to the articles. Thanks. Road Wizard 01:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks great, just a couple of small suggestions - It might be better to split patients/year into inpatients/year and outpatients/year, as I think this is how the data is published, and it also gives important information about a hospital (e.g. some hospitals may have huge outpatient departments but hardly any inpatients). Or if that's gonna get too complicated, you might find it easier to just have the number or beds - that's a pretty good indicator of hospital size. You might also want to specify what type of hospital it is (e.g. teaching hospital, district general hospital, psychiatric hospital, cottage hospital), whether or not it's a specialist centre (e.g. Newcastle is a regional centre for heart transplantation), and give some information regarding its A&E services (i.e. minor injuries unit, full A&E, whether or not it handles major trauma, is it open 24 hours/day?), although maybe that's just me (I'm an A&E specialist).--John24601 08:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
no. of beds may be a doubtful indicator - likely to be changing downwards these days :-{! Maybe replace patients and beds with outpatients and inpatients. I agree that type of hospital would be helpful. As regards A&E, maybe just whether present or not? Details - and details of specialities - could perhaps be better situated in main article. How about also adding SHA? --Smerus 10:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have now updated the template with your suggestions on beds, patients, A&E and type of hospital. However, I have a couple of questions: 1) What information do you see being entered into hospital type and where can it be found? 2) What is SHA and why should it be added? Thanks. Road Wizard 11:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
SHA - I was thinking of Strategic Health Authority - would indicate which region they came under. But as you have the Trust they belong to, SHA whould on 2nd thoughts better feature on a template for NHS Trusts. One other thing - do you think the template should feature the NHS logo - see e.g.Template:NHS medical career grades--Smerus 11:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I can probably include the logo. I will play around with the template a bit to try to fit it in neatly. Road Wizard 11:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hospital type = Teaching Hospital, District General Hospital, Cottage Hospital etc. It can be found on the hospital trust's website (which reminds me, maybe we should include the name of the hospital trust responsible as well e.g. Hull Royal Infirmary is part of the Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Hospitals Trust); SHA = Strategic Health Authority, the regional body responsible for healthcare. --John24601 11:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. From Smerus's comments above, I don't think I will include SHAs, unless you have any objections? Thanks again. Road Wizard 11:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As a test run, I have now placed a copy of the template on my sandbox page. I have hit a couple of snags with it though. 1) Where numbers of employees are listed by trust instead of by hospital, should these figures be included? 2) Where some of the data is unknown by the editor setting up the template, should these be just left blank? Also, do you have any other comments about how the template looks in practice? Thanks. Road Wizard 13:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I have started implementing the infobox, but I have been finding additional statistics on some NHS web pages. As well as in patients and out patients this page lists day case patients and attendances at the emergency care centre (A&E). Should these figures be added to the template? Road Wizard 20:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I've made a couple of changes (sorry, should have checked here first) - mainly wikifying the template so that we don't have to keep typing [[...]] when using it. Another point worth considering is that getting information (staff & patient numbers etc.) is tricky for individual hospitals - it's much easier for trusts as a whole. One possible addition could be the size of the hospital site? Waggers 13:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The infobox is a good idea & I've put it on the stub I've done for the RUH but I wasn't sure what was wanted re: A&E - I also had a problem with county as it is in a unitary authority so I've used the old ceremonial county - I don't have picture of the hospital (yet). I note the bottom link is to the list of UK hospitals - will this be superseeded by the category?Rod 10:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It is difficult to give numbers for inpatient and outpatient for a maternity hospital which talks about 4-5000 births a year — Rod talk 09:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Rod, sorry I didn't respond to your earlier comment, I must have missed it. I started up a discussion last month about what statistics should be included in the infobox at Template talk:Infobox NHS hospital. Waggers made a suggestion about a possible source for statistics but I haven't done anything further with it yet. I would appreciate your comments on what should and should not be included in the template. Also from your earlier comment, it looks like we will need to agree which type of county we should be placing on the template, if any. Thanks. Road Wizard 15:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I've since found another useful source of information: [1]. For England only, I'm afraid. Waggers 23:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Hi there,I am watching you roll out your programme, to use NHS-speak. Do you not think that - since of course many Hospital Trusts include more than one hospital - Category:NHS hospitals should itself be a category of Category:NHS Hospital Trusts? It seems to me this would be right. Best regards --Smerus 08:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (Comment copied from my talk page. Road Wizard 11:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

  • The only problem I have with that is that there is a Category:NHS Foundation Trusts as well, but we can just make Category:NHS hospitals a child of both Trust pages. On a related point, when I was setting up the NHS hospitals category, I noticed that some of the hospitals were NHS Hospital Trust or NHS Foundation Trust pages in all but name, and I am sure that the current contents of the two trust categories could also be included in the new NHS hospitals category. Normally I would suggest we do away with the new NHS hospitals category and just use the two existing ones, except that, as you say, a trust may include more than one hospital. Any thoughts on how to untangle this mess? Thanks. Road Wizard 11:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we can make 'NHS hospitals' as a child of 'NHS foundation Trusts' as not all of the former are the latter. Perhaps we are safer to leave 3 separate categories at the same level. The hospital infobox will say which 'hospital trust' a hospital belongs to. Where an individual hospital is also a Foundation Trust it can be categorised as both 'foundation trust' and 'hospital trust'. Strictly I suppose there should be 2 mutually-referencing articles for each foundation hospital, one for the Trust (history, board members, notable facts or incidents), one for the hospital itself.--Smerus 11:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how many lay people understand the concept of Foundation trusts. Maybe it would be better to merge the two and not have the distinction. As for hospitals vs trusts, have you any idea which way you want to do it? Would it be better to include entries on specific hospitals within the article on the trust they form part of and to do away with entries for specific hospitals?Adam Slack 22:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I think we have been skirting around the issue of what to do with Trust and hospital pages, because it will be such a mess to sort out. However, as it probably won't get any clearer on its own, it may be a good time to look at the issue now. I will start a new discussion below with suggestions on how to go forward. Road Wizard 15:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nursing

Am in the middle of creating an article which deals with nursing in the UK (and specifically, the NHS). The current article (see Nurse) does have some information, but I think we'd be better served by a further article which goes into much more detail. Have put it here (in my userspace) as I'm not sure on exactly what the title should be. It's provisionally titled NHS Nurses, what do you think? The article itself is obviously not finished yet, but feel free to add to it. --John24601 15:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "Nurses in the United Kingdom"? This will be a less ambiguous title for international readers. If someone eventually writes a separate article about private sector nurses in the UK we can consider at that time whether an NHS specific name is appropriate. Road Wizard 15:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Be bold! "Nursing in the United Kingdom" would be neat as a new main article.--Mereda 12:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
There exists an article Nursing which has a few paragraphs about the UK. Therefore I suggest you use the title Nursing (United Kingdom) to contain your article and anything relevant in that article - then you can delete the UK passage in Nursing and insert 'See separate article', with a link under the heading. And you can reference back the main article Nursing in your article. Best regards --Smerus 14:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
PS: You might add a heading on Nursing and Midwifery Council near the head of your article with a brief description and a link to the exisitng article on the topic.--Smerus 14:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Have moved the article to Nursing (United Kingdom), will consider adding more on the NMC later --John24601 15:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the best way of linking this to the Category:British nurses?Rod 10:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I have doe a bit of copyediting on Nursing (United Kingdom), but it has thrown up a number of red-links where articles are needed (some for the new Category: NHS defunct bodies!)--Smerus 11:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for "NHS bodies/institutions/organisations"?

With help from User:Smerus there's now a bit more visible structure for NHS Institutions and Organisations. This covers a wide spectrum, from the obvious (a hospital or hospital trust) to the fairly obscure (like the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency). The main NHS category is going to be a bit cluttered so I'm feeling we probably need some categorisation for the different types of NHS bureaucratic/front-line body. I've done a page for Non-Departmental Public Bodies (Health) but Plain English for categories would be nice. .... --Mereda 17:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Following on from that, I'd suggest trying the following three categories for the bit of the NHS that is NHS Institutions and Organisations:-

Category:National Health Service
Category:NHS organisations (national) to cover agencies, NDPBs, special health authorities etc.
Category:NHS organisations (local) to cover strategic health authorities, NHS trusts, NHS hospitals etc.
Category:NHS defunct organisations as a home for everything that is discontinued

The outcome, hopefully, would be that the Category:National Health Service would be less cluttered with more visibility for interesting NHS issues as the project goes forward.

  • Can you clarify something for me please? Are these 3 sub-categories in addition to the current ones at the Category:National Health Service level, or are they replacements with the intention that the existing sub categories becoming children of one of the new 3? Thanks. Road Wizard 12:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
With the NHS being only slightly smaller than the Chinese Army, it seems reasonable that new categories in various areas of the project will be needed to keep the top-level listing NHS down to a reasonable size. For NHS organisations, at the moment I'm thinking that this proposal would neatly mop up the national bodies, so that there is a category-level between Category:National Health Service and articles like NICE which would then be in the sub-category Category:NHS organisation (national). Otherwise stuff like my favourite NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency would be entitled to end up at the top-level too. But the merits of Category:NHS organisation (local) are trickier, because it could hide existing big categories like Category:NHS hospitals under a non-intuitive heading. Thinking of the user, maybe that part of the idea's not so clever! On a different angle, should a category normally say "organisation" or "organisations"? --Mereda 12:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we should always try to think in terms of what would be 'natural' for a non-expert Wikipedia reader. Therefore the point about non-intuitive headings is an important one. It may be better to think of a split between 'health-providing services' and 'administrative institutions' Then the latter can split between national and local. The wording needs thinking about.--Smerus 13:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), a category that would list articles about organisations belonging to the NHS should be plural; a category that would list articles discussing the organisation of the NHS should be singular. For example, if the category is just to group the various defunct bodies then it should be plural. On a separate note, have you listed Category:NHS defunct bodies on the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 25 page? I can't seem to find it on there to comment. Thanks. Road Wizard 13:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Done now. I was waiting to see if a subject heading was created automatically for me before I edited anything in "categories for deletion". I'm not that bold! --Mereda 14:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The proposed deletion/renaming of Category:NHS defunct bodies has attracted a little interest at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 25, though not much discussion. It seems fair that every sub-category, because it should be able to stand alone, should contain "NHS" or "National Health Service"; personally I'd prefer "NHS" as the standard, for user readability - and anyway that's the style that's used consistently in the existing 5 other sub-categories. But the current naming convention implies that every category should always say "National Health Service" in full. I'll try asking about a convention change, and meanwhile I've left a reminder about this on the project page --Mereda 15:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Abbreviations_.28again.29_-_where_the_well-known_logo_is_the_abbreviation

[edit] Defunct Articles

Should we start a list of defunct NHS articles? Given the rapid pace of change in the NHS there is likely to be a significant number of old articles that are no longer relevant. Once we begin to list them, we can decide whether they should be saved as a historical record, merged with another article or deleted. I will begin the list with the article that inspired me to introduce this section. Road Wizard 22:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Might also help to have a Category:NHS defunct bodies which I've linked to "Category:Former public bodies in the United Kingdom" . Don't know why the edit here didn't show category text in square brackets --Mereda 10:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Good one - btw you need to put a colon (:) after the square bracket and before the word 'category' to get the Category box to show - thus Category:Former public bodies in the United Kingdom--Smerus 11:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Establish standards

Does anyone have any ideas how we should start to "Establish a set of standards for NHS articles"? I have placed it at the top of our "to do" list as it is mentioned on the main project page under the title "What needs to be done". However, I am at a total loss as to how to start on it. Perhaps we should just leave the criteria listed as a set of goals to aim for when editing articles and leave it at that? Any comments would be welcome. Thanks. Road Wizard 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. As no one has responded on this, I will change the "establish standards" section to a list of goals we are aiming for. I will also remove it from our to-do list later today. Road Wizard 09:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category Structure

Moving onto item two of our to-do list, I thought I would begin a more comprehensive discussion of how the category structure should work. I have provided below a proposed structure based on some of the comments above. We can amend the model below as we go along. Road Wizard 12:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:National Health Service

Category:NHS health providing services
Category:NHS ambulance services
Category:NHS Foundation Trusts
Category:NHS Hospital Trusts
Category:NHS hospitals
Category:NHS Primary Care Trusts
Category:NHS administrative institutions
Category:NHS defunct organisations - or whatever its name becomes.
Category:NHS legislation
Category:NHS regions [sm]
e.g. Category:NHS Grampian [sm]
Category:NHS people
Category:NHS administrators
Category:NHS campaigners
Category:NHS medical staff
Category:NHS politicians
  • Category:NHS Health Authorities - what parent category should this come under?
  • Category:NHS Special Health Authorities - what parent category should this come under?
I have suggested some changes in the above, marked with [sm].--Smerus 09:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

:Category:People with a notable involvement in the NHS - we will [definitely want a better name for this one.

how about, simply, NHS people, with a description in the category header on the lines of 'Politicians, civil servants and clinicians who have had direct impact on NHS strategy and practices'[sm]
Changes made to the model. I have moved this part out of the model section to avoid confusion. Road Wizard 22:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I have now removed my suggested people sub-categories. It would probably be best if we wait for that category to fill up before discussing divisions. Road Wizard 13:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teaching hospitals

Could anyone who has the knowledge add something about teaching hospitals in the NHS in the article Teaching hospital? At the moment it contains a sentence or two about the US and a paragraph on Ancient Persia. If it had something on the UK (or maybe if there was a separate article Teaching hospital (NHS)) , we could use it as a standard link on the NHS hospital infobox. --Smerus 08:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NHS Regions

There are 15 NHS regions in NHS Scotland and after July 1st there will be ten in England (each with an SHA - now listed). Someone can doubtless tell us how many there are in Wales and N. Ireland.

I propose that we treat each of these regions as an NHS category (as is already the case with Category:NHS Grampian). Hopitals and Trusts located in each region can then also be categorised by region.

We will need to have an article for each of the regions. I propose that for England the 'header' article for each region be an article on the SHA.

To assist all this we need to have a template for NHS Trusts- giving for example region, type of trust, annual budget, name of Chairman and Chief Executive. I will try to design one for your comments. In the meantime I invite comments on this proposal for regions.--Smerus 08:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • See example of Trust box at Enfield Primary Care NHS Trust - but I haven't worked out how to do the spacing so that entries are not broekn up over two rows.......--Smerus 09:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Smerus, how will we avoid these articles from remaining stubs throughout their existence? While I have no doubt they are notable, how do you envisage populating them with useful information? JFW | T@lk 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That is a good point. At present I am working abroad; I will have no problem developing the stubs I have started (such as Enfield Primary Care NHS Trustwhere I am in fact a non-executive director) when I am back in the UK. I suppose it is a moral responsibility to develop a stub once one has started it! One problem is that the NHS coverage in WP has been so full of holes that it has been necessary to put up a large number of stubs in order to demarcate the area to be covered, if I can mix metaphors. Perhaps helpers in the WikiProject could in the near future dedicate a couple of weeks to expanding stubs - should we try this? --Smerus 20:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like we could do with a "collaboration of the month" style template for the project page (and, for the willing, our user pages) to focus our efforts on the neediest articles. From what I've seen, quite a few wikiprojects take this approach and (as long as it's updated often enough), it seems to work. (The exception being the UK geography project, where the "collaboration of the month" has been Dartmoor for most of this year!) Waggers 20:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
A "collaboration of the month" or similar might be a good idea - but we probably need to recruit a few more project members to get much done. I'm away in Korea for the next couple of weeks & will be busy, with variable access, but when I get back would be willing to get more involved. — Rod talk 07:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NHS stubs

  • A bit of a tiswas has developed over the use of Template:NHS-stub, and hence Category:NHS stubs. See their talk pages and also look here, where I am trying to rectify the situation. Please support my proposals there if you agree with them.--Smerus 08:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
A different, but related, issue we may want to look at is the use of "medical" as the parent category instead of "healthcare". Certainly in the NHS, if not worldwide, "medical" staff are doctors or people having a degree in medicine, and the term excludes nurses, therapists, scientists and other healthcare providers. I don't want us to bite off more than we can chew, but we may need to try and get "medical" changed to the more generic, and inclusive, "healthcare" at some stage. Waggers 10:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I would support the use of healthcare or even health - however I've been having this argument for years & still not winning. Another slight worry I have is about the use of the NHS logo on info boxes etc - I remember a case a few years ago when a site (very critical of NHS management) was threatened with prosecution for using the logo without permission. — Rod talk 11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the logo is protected by (Crown) copyright. It's use on the main NHS article is probably ok in terms of "fair use", but elsewhere we may be on dodgy ground. However, the same standard of "fair use" should equally apply to trust logos on trust and hospital article pages, so that may be the solution. It means uploading a whole heap of images though! Waggers 12:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't try to "rectify the situation" by undoing a deletion carried out according to due process, and making reverts to widely-included templates; such actions are bad for the smooth running of Wikipedia as regards respectively consensus-building, and minimising unnecessary server load. (Though thank you at least for announcing the recreation.) The place for proposed new (and recreated old) stub templates and categories is here. On image use in templates of all kinds, see Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy, item #9. (Non-images reproducing the same effect typographically may be dodgy too, but as I'm not nearly wealthy enough to be an IP lawyer, I venture no firm opinion as to whether they're sufficiently similar for this to be a concern.) Alai 02:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • now listed for recreation as you suggest. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/June. Don't be too hard on us - we are learning as we go along, and have had no intention of upsetting WP procedures. I encourage eveyone to comment (favourably I hope) on the proposal.--Smerus 06:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there any update on this? There's been no further comment at the Stub Sorting proposals page since my rant of 10th June - presumably this is because there are no further arguments against Category:NHS stubs (or Category:National Health Service stubs if that's preferred) and we're free to re-create the category again... Waggers 20:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the rules of stub creation you can create a new stub-template/stub-category if there has been no objection after one week (it does not say how to deal with it if there has been any objection). As Carabinieri and Grutness have both objected, I would suggest you take the issue forward by discussing the matter with them on an individual basis. If they are willing to remove their objections, then you should be free to go ahead. Road Wizard 21:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad someone managed to get a grip on the bureaucracy! I've done as you suggested. Waggers 21:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, of those two users, one says he still doesn't know the difference between medical and healthcare but doesn't care any more, and the other has no further objections. It looks like we can go ahead, but first I guess we should consider whether we need to. After all, we can use the "what links here" from the stub template, and ignore the category, if we need to for the project. One thing I think we should do, though, is push for the use of "health" or "healthcare" rather than "medical", as the latter is misleading. I can think of a number of people who would take offense if we started referring to all NHS staff as medics! Any thoughts? Waggers 19:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I recommend go for the full stub, including 'National Health Service stub' as category name (i.e. not 'NHS stub' as a name) - that seems to deal with all angles ---Smerus 12:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it could be useful (whatever the name) & there are a large number of NHS related pages which could do with it - if we are to put this onto pages do we remove the med-org-stub from pages which get the new NHS one? This could also help to populate the "NHS collaboration of the week" which doesn't seem to be achieving much? — Rod talk 13:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll leave it a few more days to see if there are further objections, then we can go ahead with the new stub category. We wouldn't need to manually change every article, no; changing the category on the NHS stub template itself will automatically do that for us. Waggers 16:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major change of layout

I have been bold and made a major change of layout to the main project page. I felt that the page had become cluttered with too much information, and that potential new members may be scared away by trying to work their way through it all. To improve the situation, I have borrowed a layout from Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help that separates the information into more manageable sections. Can I please have your comments on whether you think this is an improvement, or if I have been too bold? We can always revert the changes if you do not like them. Thanks. Road Wizard 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks great. My only niggle is that the subpages don't carry the same font and colour scheme, making them feel a bit disjointed from the front page. But that's a minor thing. Waggers 19:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks RW, great improvement. --Smerus 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have now changed the font & colour settings for each of the sub-pages, but not talk pages. I am happy for you to play around with the style if you think of something better. Road Wizard 20:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the week

I have now listed our first Collaboration of the week. I decided to be original and went with the first page list under A in our stub category. Can as many editors as possible spend a few minutes each week to improve the selected article? Working together we will begin to see a dramatic improvement. Please also make suggestions as to which pages we should collaborate on in future. Thanks. Road Wizard 20:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Great to start on this collaboration agenda, but I suggest 1 hospital a week is going to make progress pretty slow. Why not, for example, 'hospitals beginning with A' or 'Hospitals in NHS Grampian'? We could then all get stuck in. --Smerus 17:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It all depends on how much time people are willing to put into the collaboration each week. If the others are willing to expand the focus by including more subjects, then I don't see much problem with your suggestion. I would point out though that it is not just hospital pages we would be expanding, though they do make up the bulk of our stubs. Road Wizard 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New collaboration

To keep the ball rolling I have proposed 'hospitals in the NHS Grampian region'.--Smerus 17:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been a little snowed under for the last week. I will try and get some of those fleshed out a little though before this Friday. Road Wizard 21:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright logos

I see from discussions above that concerns were raised over the copyright status of the NHS logos we have been using in templates and articles. From reading Wikipedia's guidance on copyright, the emphasis is on removing copyrighted content unless we are certain that we either have a strong fair-use argument or that our use of the content does not otherwise breach copyright. I don't think the fact that we have replaced the NHS logo image with a mock-up made from a blue background and white font on the templates is any real defence in law. Unless someone can present a good argument for retention, I would suggest that we remove the logos from anywhere that their use cannot be justified (fair use on specific individual articles). I have started a list below of where I am aware that an NHS logo is in use. I would appreciate any comments, or additions to the list. Road Wizard 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can justify use in the articles themselves - particularly articles on NHS organisations (as opposed to hospitals, etc.). I agree that we probably shouldn't be using it in stub templates and the like, though. If you look at articles on private companies (Southern Water springs to mind, as I've worked on that one), you'll see that using company logos in articles for illustrative purposes seems to be considered fair use. Waggers 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Nicholson

It has been announced today that David Nicholson has been appointed chief executive of the UK's National Health Service & I wanted to check Wikipedia had an article on him. There is already a page for David Nicholson but I don't think it is the same person - how can I check this & if they are different how do I create a new article with the same name & overcome the disamigaution problems? — Rod talk 14:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think they are different people. This is the David Nicholson from the article, whilst this one is the former Chief Executive of Birmingham and The Black Country Strategic Health Authority. I am assuming the new NHS CEO is the second man I identified, and not a third, unrelated, David Nicholson.
For how to disambiguate the articles, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) suggests placing the subject's occupation in brackets. I would suggest creating the new article at David Nicholson (civil servant). Once created you would disambiguate by leaving a message like the ones below at the top of each page.
This article relates to the British politician, David Nicholson. For the CEO of the British National Health Service see [[David Nicholson (civil servant)]].
This article relates to the CEO of the British National Health Service, David Nicholson. For the British politician see [[David Nicholson]].
If you have any other questions, just let me know. Road Wizard 15:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I've done one called David Nicholson CBE even though I know you're not supposed to use titles in page names - should I rename this as civil servant? — Rod talk 15:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think some form of renaming is in order, either to civil servant or to another name if you can think of one. As a former MP, it is possible that the other David Nicholson has also acquired a CBE (or may yet do so in the future) so the current article name could cause confusion. Road Wizard 15:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
OK how do I remane the page?— Rod talk 15:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
To rename a page, you just need to click on the "move" button at the top of the article page, type in the new name and a reason for the move, then finally click "move page". For further advice on page moves see WP:Move. Road Wizard 15:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - Done— Rod talk 15:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trust and hospital articles

How do we want to handle the trust and hospital articles? Currently we seem to be aiming for an article for every trust and an article for every hospital. In the short term at least, this will lead to a very large number of stub articles being created. Here are a few options we might want to go with:

  1. Carry on with 1 article per trust and 1 article per hospital.
  2. Have 1 article per trust including information on its associated hospitals. Hospitals can have separate articles when their sections become big enough to warant one.
  3. Have lists of Trusts with sections that can be expanded for details of each one. Trusts can have separate articles when their sections have expanded enough to justify them.
  4. Leave the situation alone and let the situation develop without trying to impose any control.

If you can think of any other options, please list them as well. Thanks. Road Wizard 07:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with many NHS organisations, particularly those affected by Commissioning a Patient-Led NHS, is that the articles are going to be almost identical for the ten strategic health authorities and the new PCTs. Their history etc. is the same because it's come about through central decision making and apart from a few demographic stats, there's very little to say about each one! Hospitals are a little easier as they usually have a distinct history. I'm all for including hospitals as sections of the acute trust articles, but I've no idea how to start on SHA or PCT articles without making them carbon copies of one another. Any suggestions? Waggers 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting others involved

Although I believe the this Wikiproject is improving the quality (and organisation) of articles about the NHS & related areas it isn't happening very fast. I feel we need to get others involved & have asked some colleagues from the RCN to look at the page about that organisation & nursing topics. I have written and sent off a piece for the new magazine of the BCS Health Informatics Forum asking for readers to get involved in improving the relevant wikipedia articles. I have now been asked to do a piece for the RSM journal He@lth Information on the Internet & need to do something that is a bit different - what do you feel are the key points which need to be included & emphasised to get people involved? — Rod talk 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded sooner. If you are trying to get people involved who have no knowledge of Wikipedia, I assume you are going to cover the basics, so there is no need for me to do so as well. I assume that this article will be aimed at people with a knowledge of medical subjects? If so, then I think you should place emphasis on neutrality and sourcing. People with specialist knowledge are very helpful to Wikipedia, except that they often include details they take for granted, but which can't be verified. As for the "something that is a bit different", I don't think I can help you too much. Road Wizard 07:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
the first of these has now been published as Online encyclopaedia is in need of redrafting lets hope it generates some activity.— Rod talk 16:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creating NHS articles specific to the 4 countries

When creating NHS articles, can I point out that unless the content relates to all four countries of the UK, that stating "the NHS in Britain", "Britain's NHS", "the United Kingdoms NHS" etc is simply wrong. There has never been a body called the UK NHS.

Examples were (until I edited them):



  • NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service - The "NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (NHS CFSMS) is the organisation with the remit to protect the staff, assets and resources of the NHS."
    • Different to the two above as there is no distinction between the devolved NHS, where as in this example the NHS CFSMS is not a body in Scotland, yet the article infers that.

I am not a radically patriotic Scot, BTW. Panthro 21:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resource allocation projects

Is the NSH involved in any official health resource allocation projects? Many other health organizations are starting to look at ways to allocate health dollars on a more equal basis (such as on population characteristics) instead of simply using past budgets as an indicator (same money even if disease profile has changed). I may add this to the NSH article or to the article on health economics if there is such a project. --ShaunMacPherson 13:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ? inclusion of Healthcare Commission data

Yesterday the Healthcare Commission made available data about all NHS trusts in relation to Quality of Services and Management of Resources (see Healthcare Commission - search our findings should an excerpt of this data (or a link to the HC site specific page) be included in each of our entries for trusts etc?— Rod talk 10:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think its definatly relevent. A link to the URL in the infobox, and a section in the article on the rating and rationale for the rating? --RickiRich 00:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 17:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MEDMOS needs YOU!

The Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) is entering a critical stage: I'm informing people to visit the page, make corrections where possible, and then state there support or disagreements on the talk page, so we can see if there is consensus to turn this proposed guideline into a consensus-supported guideline.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of hospitals in Wales

Hi all. I am working on List of hospitals in Wales at the moment. I will have a page for each Trust, together with at least a stub on every hospital (at first, until there's enough to spin off into their own article, all info on a hospital will be within the appropriate Trust). Proto::type 14:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Hospital upgrade proposal

I have a proposal to merge Template:Infobox NHS hospital into an upgraded Template:Infobox Hospital (we really don't need a US Hospitals, Canadian Hospital, Australian Hospital templates etc). Some UK NHS hospitals already have Template:Infobox Hospital rather than the NHS-specific template. Whilst the NHS-template has good additional parameters to that of the currently US-centric Template:Infobox Hospital, all of these seemed appropriate to add into the Template:Infobox Hospital but in a manner than is more generic for any country and allowing for UK Private hospitals to be included as well as NHS.

See Template talk:Infobox Hospital for details on the proposal & discussion. My subpage User talk:Davidruben/Templates/Test1 has demonstrations. I don't think there should be anything too controvertial as any current article using the Template:Infobox Hospital will be hardly affected (just request to insert a country to the location details). See Template talk:Infobox NHS hospital re fairly meaningless (for an encyclopaedia) statistics within the current Template:Infobox NHS hospital that do not seem to be used by articles and should be dropped (this made the differences between the two templates quite small - again see the table in the proposal at Template talk:Infobox Hospital). Whilst almost all of the extisting Template:Infobox Hospital parameter names need to be kept for compatibility reasons (only 'Classification' for trauma coverage gets a newer more functional alternative parameter of 'Emergency'), some of my new parameter names seem awkwardly named. Can people have a look at the proposal at Template talk:Infobox Hospital and offer any alternative names for the parameters ? David Ruben Talk 13:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Jfdwolff's talk page:David Ruben Talk 13:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think NHS hospitals should have dedicated boxes. A hospital is a hospital. JFW | T@lk 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is that in Scotland there are no NHS trusts - thereby the first two fields being inaccurate. Panthro 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hence I hope that the more generic "Org/Group" parameter will allow mention of NHS trusts or health boards where these exist, or other controlling body - so what should it be for Scottish NHS hospitals ? David Ruben Talk 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Scotland only has health boards, with their hospitals sub-divided usually into "Acute Division". Trusts were abolished in 2000. Panthro 17:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a one-on-one link i.e. each Hospital run by one dedicated Health Board or might a Health Board run several hospitals ? David Ruben Talk 23:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, say for example, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde - it's Acute Operative Division runs all of the acute hospitals within its boundaries. Its Primary Operative Division runs all the services within the community, e.g. health centres. Of the 14 geographical health boards in Scotland all of them have this set-up. There are however, Special health boards - for example the State Hospitals Board for Scotland which only runs the State Hospital at Carstairs (secure mental health hospital) and the Golden Jubilee National Hospital - which only administers the Jubilee hospital. Other non-geographic boards include NHS24,, Scottish Ambulance Service and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland etc etc. Panthro 23:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last call for comment

I've had a couple of suggestions and amended and renamed a couple of the parameters in the proposed upgrade to Template:Infobox Hospital. I would appreciate comment on choice of parameter names, e.g. 'HealthCare' vs. Funding, alternatives to 'Standards' (applies to developing countries with external accreditation certification), 'Region' vs Area (for the current County. but this does not apply outside of UK & US). In the next day or so, I shall implement the changes (see demonstration) and redirect this UK-centric template across to the generic template... David Ruben Talk 03:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Hospital has been upgraded to include additional features. Template:Infobox NHS hospital is now depreciated and I have recoded it so that its parameters defined a subset of the generic Template:Infobox Hospital. Please see details on the template pages about how to upgrade articles to the full generic template (additional parameters and automatic wikilinking provided). I would appreciate help in this upgrade as there are quite a lot of hospitals involved... :-) David Ruben Talk 05:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NHS hospital is now fully depreciated and redirects to Template:Infobox Hospital David Ruben Talk 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Comments about proposed NHS WikiProject are welcome here.

Congratuations on creating the project, a few thoughts:

  • Most wikiprojects also have a section on their projectpage to list "Participants" to the project. This includes a summary of their "Special interests" (e.g. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine), so on this project people might list themselves as being doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, administrators, practice managers, accountants, etc etc.
  • It is stated that "no parent of this WikiProject has been defined". However is not the NHS's primary aim that of health care provision and as such should it not be a daughter to Wikipedia:WikiProject Health ?
  • A suggestion for an additonal stated aim of this project and one that is perhaps too politely hidden in the current description of aims - namely the redress of health-provision topics that are US-centric and thus make little sense to the UK reader. Hence until very recently the glaring ommission of articles for District nurse or Health Visitor had not been picked up. Whilst I have added stubs as to what these are, they need expanding in terms of their history and a better description of the service provision that they provide with respect to the NHS as a whole (my perspective is that of being a General Practitioner). David Ruben Talk 08:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
many thanks for these constructive suggestions. You are spot on about professions and job-titles within the NHS, which needs a lot of work by someone who (unlike me) knows about them. --Smerus 14:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using the hospital infobox

An issue has arisen with using the infobox for vanished hospitals - the case in point being Highlands Hospital. Whilst I belieive the topic deserves an article, using the standard infobox alongside it (with its categories such as emergency services, website, responsible authority, etc.) seems to me rather misleading. So I want to propose a convention that the infobox is only used for actual hospitals which are still used for treating illness - especially as there are so many active hospitals where the infobox is not up yet. Please give your opinion.--Smerus 17:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that closed hospitals still warrant having an infobox, but that it should make clear the hospital is closed. The current infobox does that (it's always had a closed date as part of the history section) although arguably it should be made clearer. What services the hospital offered and who managed it are still relevant information so shouldn't be removed from the infobox. The point of an infobox is to give summary information on the article, not to say "this hospital is still open". Waggers 10:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

By the way, as this page is getting rather long, I have set up the auto-archive feature which you can see at the top, which should make it easier to find our way about current issues. Archived items will continue to be available at a click.--Smerus 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Good move. Waggers 10:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad timing by me, the Werdnabot is off line, but there is a specialized archiving bot for talkpages for which I have put in a request. Watch the space at the top of the page!--Smerus 13:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Although Werdnabot is currently offline, Shadowbot3 has taken over the archiving of pages that have the Werdnabot archival template on them, so using the Werdnabot templates should still work. Waggers 14:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MEDMOS

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is a proposed guideline discussed and developed over recent months. Please visit the talk page to indicate whether you support or oppose Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) becoming a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category Structure

I might as well kick this off! How about structuring Categories by region? For example Category:Welsh NHS Trusts would be a subcategory of a new Category:NHS hospital trusts by region. Or perhaps just a new Category:NHS by region would be better? Is this the same as the existing Category:NHS regions? Should Category:NHS Scotland and existing Category:Welsh NHS Trusts already be subcategories of this?

I want to create a new category for Northern Ireland Hospital Trusts which would include for example Belfast Trust. Should I start by creating Category:NHS Northern Ireland or Category:Northern Ireland NHS Trusts, Category:Northern Ireland Hospital Trusts or all three?? Any advice appreciated? Tsumo@ 12:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that:
  • Trusts in England should be categorised according to the strategic health authority area they belong to, and the category should be called NHS [Area], as in "NHS North West", "NHS London", "NHS South East Coast" etc.
  • Trusts in Scotland should be categorised according to the health board area they belong to, eg "NHS Fife", "NHS Lothian" etc.
  • Trusts in Northern Ireland should also be categorised according to health board/health council area, eg. "Eastern Health and Social Services", "Northern Health and Social Services" (although maybe a "Northern Ireland" needs to creep into those titles to disambiguate them?
  • Trusts in Wales should be categorised in Category:NHS Wales.
Each trust should also have an additional category, by type: (hospital trust, primary care trust, mental health trust).
Any thoughts?-- Waggers 15:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)