Talk:Aspiration pneumonia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ldolle, Aoka222, YooCo, Elizabeth Hays. Peer reviewers: Brandon James Ross.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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): D7ng77. Peer reviewers: Hl533.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Treatments

Some info on treatment, prognosis etc would be very helpful :)

Just what I was going to suggest! Also, I'd like to see more actual not-too-jargony discussion of how aspiration might occur. (An example of a description that I found rather lacking: "during general anaesthesia" does not really explain what makes aspiration a particular risk during GA if the patient has eaten recently (although presumably it is, hence the standard NPO order).)

On another note...Previous poster: you forgot to sign your comment. Four tildes (~) in a row (see the explanation at the top of the "editing" page, right under where the title of the page (e.g., "Editing Talk:Aspiration pneumonia (section)") is shown in a really big font size, will do it automatically, with your Wikipedia ID if you have one (and are logged in), and your IP address if not. (I recommend getting a Wikipedia account if you don't have one already and plan to post fairly often — for privacy's sake (to avoid posting your IP address), because it helps you establish an identity on Wikipedia, because it makes you a part of the community and not just a guest, etc.) Mia229 (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Frequency of occurence

Frequency of this occurrence would be a possible section. There is a lot of information lacking in the article.--Wikipietime (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

New comment: I speak from experience, and from conversations with surgeons. Aspiration is a regular cause of pneumonia in patients who have undergone colonic interposition and/or gastric pull-up surgery when the esophagus needs replacement (as might be from a diagnosis of esophageal cancer). With certain colonic interpositions, the manubrium is reduced, and in my case the left clavicle was separated from the manubrium to create adequate space for the join of the new conduit to the remainder of the esophagus at my throat.

This has resulted in sporadic but recurrent instances of night-time aspiration, on occasion quite significant, and on two occasions hospitalization by ambulance. Three occurrences have resulted in pneumonia successfully treated with antibiotics. I have been told anecdotally this is not uncommon.

I invite those more expert than am I to research and write this up properly. Jnbrit (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The key is to find good references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Student Editing Initiative: University of Central Florida

I am currently a fourth year medical student at the University of Central Florida enrolled in a Wikiproject course. I will be working on this article for the next few weeks. Below are the changes I will bring to this page.

- Update all information to ensure that everything is consistent with current practice.

- Edit the lead to better summarize existing information along with new material that will be added.

- Add section differentiating aspiration pneumonia from chemical pneumonitis.

- Expand on each individual risk factor as opposed to a list.

- Verify existing article material with proper references.

- Expand on the implicated bacteria section, location section, diagnosis section, prevention section.

- Add section on treatment, prognosis, and complications.

--D7ng77 (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@D7ng77: You are doing a great job so far on your edits! Thank you for your efforts to improve the evidence base of this article. We greatly appreciate new medical editors on Wikipedia. JenOttawa (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@D7ng77:I made a few small edits earlier today. Note: please change "patient(s)" to "people/person", which is preferred in Wikipedia. Please also note that when re-wording evidence from a review article use lay terminology that people without a medical background can understand. Once again, you are doing a great job so far. It is wonderful to see this article being improved so much. This article is getting a good 500-600 page views a day[1]! While not as high as pneumonia (10,000+ page views/day), it is incredible the number of people/patients that your editing initiative is reaching. Thanks again, JenOttawa (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Medicine Student Review

Hi,

Overall, great article and superb writing. This reviewer has found that you have organized the article in line with Wiki Medicine style guidelines (aside from a small set of bullet points in the Causes section). You did a great job adding many citations that are secondary sources/review articles/texts, and all within the last 5 years. Almost every sentence was appropriately supported. I also read through your initial work plan and believe that you accomplished your stated objectives. The introduction was brief yet comprehensive, there was clear differentiation between aspiration and chemical pneumonitis later on, individual risk factors were explained (with a small comment on anesthesia), and the new sections of treatment, prognosis, and complications were well written. This reviewer felt your attention to detail and expansion of the bacteria, location, diagnosis, and prevention sections turned the article into a more complete read and valuable source of information to any of the 5-600 patients viewing the article. Any suggestions I included are listed below.

Comments:

Introduction:
Chemical Pneumonitis sentence begins a bit ambiguously - could try "Subtypes of pneumonia include chemical pneumonitis etc."

Causes:
Abrupt change from examples of pathologic causes to procedural/medicinal causes - could try to add a transition phrase.

All of the bullet points in Risk Factors could be changed to "Sub-heading 2" in the formatting panel on the editing page - may adhere more to style guide

Defining "putrid" may aid understanding; creating link to or briefly defining the process of bacterial cultures may aid in understanding

Location:
Defining "Aspiration" here or earlier may aid in understanding

If an image from a legally appropriate database can be found to represent right lung anatomy, may aid in understanding

Defining briefly or creating a link to "Consolidation" may aid in understanding

Diagnosis:
Great example of briefly defining terms in same sentence for lay readers

May include short list of most common physical exam findings to aid in understanding

Differential:
Defining "WBC" may aid in understanding

"Inflammation" - defining imflammation as an adverse result of body's own immune response to various things beyond bacterial/viral may help readers understand the distinction/subtly between the two

Oral Hygiene: well written, understandable section

Enhanced Swallow: well written, understandable section

After Surgery: including brief cause-effect explanation behind anesthesia being a risk for aspiration and bullet listing a few of the most common risk factors for aspiration may aid in understanding

Prognosis: well written, understandable section

Complications: well written, understandable section

Best,
hl533

• A word document with specific highlights was also distributed via student organization's private network — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hl533 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Aspiration pneumonia versus chemical pneumonitis=

This ref from 2017 calls chemical pneumonitis a type.[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Foundations II 2019 Group 4A

Our goal is to update and include more information regarding aspiration pneumonia and the elderly. --Elizabeth Hays (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Group 4C Peer Review

• Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
Yes, the additions were clear and easy to understand and attributed to a reliable source.
• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
Yes, you achieved your goal of updating the correct citations and were able to add in more specific information about the antibiotic treatment duration.
• Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…
Yes, the edits kept the article neutral, and the article's original content already had a neutral point of view.
• Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify…
Yes, the article has citations for almost every statement/paragraph, and the new reference added is also secondary source recent from 6 months ago.
• Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…
Yes, each citation is formatted appropriately and accessible.
• Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…
No.
Do.shelly (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”. Yes

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, updated the toilet training section

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? Yes

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? Yes

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? Yes

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? No

Neilshieh (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

:Neutral point of view: Yes, and does a good job of deleting words or phases that are not neutral. Sources: The source added was a great secondary source. Wiki Style: Yes Yes the group does satisfy their goal of adding information on aspiration in elderly patients. Consider--> Adding link outs to other wikipedia pages of the antibiotics listed in the treatment section in case the reader wants more information on them. (Foley1115 (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC))

Group 4C's edits made significant contributions to the article including clarity and additional information with supporting evidence. The Group appears to have achieved its overall goals. I see no evidence of plagiarism Brandon James Ross (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)