Radom event gen

Your submission at Articles for creation: Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board (November 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board

Hello, Radom event gen. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board (February 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Article creation

On first glance, it appears that the article should be re-written in the film documentary style. The Infobox is fine, but the theme section can be re=written as the "plot" and the content section as the "production". The tone of the article can be addressed as well, making it more neutral and identifying and using more traditional reference sources, such as books on the topic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Specifics?

Thank you for the advice, FWiW Bzuk. I'm still concerned about the "neutral voice" issue. All the statements in the article are facts and not subjective opinions or value judgments about the content of the film. It could be my lack of Wikipedia experience, but I might not see what you see. Could you be more specific? Again, thank you. Radom event gen (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Some simple things, make your intro "lede" much shorter, providing only basic information, title, director, topic and date of broadcast; perhaps the General Electric and donor connection. Start a plot or content section that, again, is much more succinct, only giving a brief overview of the main incidents covered in the story- accidental dosage, misdiagnosis, etc. Create a production section, who was interviewed, what, when, where, why, how (the usual 5 Ws). Conclude with a release/reception/broadcast section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board

Hello, Radom event gen. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. —MRD2014 (Happy Thanksgiving!) 16:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Jeffrey Wertkin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeffrey Wertkin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Wertkin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Radom event gen. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Your edits to date all related to the business of CareFusion. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Radom event gen. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with CareFusion, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Response to request

First of all, thank you for your work in conflict of interest. It's an important topic and essential to keeping Wikipedia the vital, unbiased reference tool that it is. I can definitively state that I have no connection to CareFusion, paid, professional, personal, or otherwise. This was true when CareFusion was a company, and it is still true now that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Becton Dickinson. I don't think I have even ever been the beneficiary of CareFusion medical products in my personal healthcare. I am not in violation of the Wikipedia Paid-contribution terms of use, and have no conflicts of interest or disclosures to make in regards to the pages I have created or edited.

I would also add that my edits to date have not even remotely been all related to the business of CareFusion as you stated. I have created and edited pages on a variety of people, organizations, films, countries, areas of medical and law enforcement study, and technology. The people I have written about come from varied industries including law enforcement, public health, aerospace and aviation, entertainment, and safety systems engineering. Radom event gen (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. They are mostly focused on medical errors, which is CareFusion's business, or CareFusion itself. (that is what the two documentaries are about)

What concerns me the most are your edits about the whistleblower case and your creation of the BLP article - I am very concerned about WP:BLPCOI on the Wertkin article; this is especially egregious here in WP. (From which one can recover, if there is disclosure and stepping back!)

this and especially this, are exactly what I would expect from a representative of CareFusion who was trying to carry on the litigation here in Wikipedia. The promotional content about their drug in the midst of that was a) offtopic and b) making an argument that they should have not been restricted from marketing it that way. How do you explain that?

Btw, please note that if you are connected in any way to BD, Skadden Arps, Jones Day, Ropes & Grey, Hymen Phelps, or any law firm involved in the transactions or various litigations, this is also a COI; please don't evaluate whether you have a COI but rather disclose any relationships you have with people and companies or other legal entities related to the subject matter you have edited. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to engage you in this conversation if you are willing to read my statements and give them the benefit of the doubt that they are true. I clearly stated that I have no conflicts of interest or disclosures to make. If I need to denounce any connection to "Skadden Arps, Jones Day, Ropes & Grey, Hymen Phelps, or any law firm involved in the transactions or various litigations," that is fine. I am not in any way connected to any of those organizations either.

True, many of my edits are related to patient safety and medical errors. I have had personal experience in healthcare, medical errors, and patient safety, and have recognition in the field, so I am a good person to write about these topics. But, again, I know the rules and I am not conflicted and have no direct connection the topics I'm editing. I have also edited pages of other major players in medical error and patient safety internationally and in the United States. How do those have anything to do with CareFusion? They do not. Some of those people have even been critics of the medical device industry.

CareFusion is a medical device company. They are not a "medical error" company. Being that they create devices, it is in their best interest to make sure they are safe and used properly. That could be defined as patient safety. Checklists are also an important tool in patient safety. Leadership and communication skills are critical in patient safety. Patient engagement and process improvement are also important in reducing medical error. CareFusion doesn't deal in those areas, but many of the other people I write about do. The connection is patient safety, not the device company. For example, the other documentary you referenced, Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami, is also about medical error and patient safety. It covers a very wide range of topics, but none of them have anything to do with any of CareFusion's business areas. My point is that one can be involved in medical error mitigation and patient safety in many ways, and although CareFusion is involved in some ways, it does not mean that all things regarding reducing medical error would be related to that company or any other specific company. In my opinion, reducing medical error is in the best interest of humans. I don't do it to promote a specific product, service, or technology.

Let's address my edits to the False Claims page and the CareFusion page. In the False Claims page, you have a good point that the statement about chlorhexidine-alcohol as a superior cleaning agent is off topic. I can even see how that might raise suspicion for someone interested in exposing conflicts of interest. I have no issues removing it since it may be off topic on that page, but I still think it relates to the case. Not only is it an interesting fact about chlorhexidine, but I added it to give the reader some context as to why CareFusion would be promoting the drug (please note that I'm not referring to the promotion off label which I will address below). The case brought against them was important in healthcare for several reasons, but one of the main reasons was related to a national standard that was changed based on evidence published in the New England Journal of Medicine which showed chlorhexidine as more effective than iodine in certain surgical procedures. It is because of this comparison of the two major skin cleaning chemicals that the standard was changed to recommend chlorhexidine and not iodine. CareFusion then used that standard to help them sell their product ChloraPrep, the branded version of chlorhexidine. Part of the case against CareFusion involved allegedly paying kickbacks to someone on the national standard setting committee. These allegations could not be substantiated and the standards committee and CDC still endorse the chlorhexidine practice. This does not speak to the off-label allegation, but to the kickback allegation. I think it's a fascinating case, and I hope this description makes sense. If not, I'm happy to clarify more if I can.

I would also like to address my edit to the CareFusion page. The reasons for the detail about the comparison of chlorhexidine to iodine are the same as the reasons I stated above, but here they are even more relevant. In fact, it would probably be better to expand this section and include some of the factual portions of my text above. There is little context on this case on the page, and previous editors have misrepresented it. That is the reason that I removed the section that said, "The Department of Justice alleged that CareFusion paid its CEO USD $11.6 million to influence the Safe Practices Committee at the National Quality Forum to recommend, promote and arrange for the purchase of that company's products. The CEO called the kickback allegations "surprising" while his attorney emphasized that the whistleblower lawsuit contains no allegations against the CEO." The sources show that the DOJ did not allege anything about the CEO of CareFusion as the prior entry indicated. The page was inaccurate, so I changed it. The CEO at the time was David Schlotterbeck. He was not named in any of the DOJ claims. He was retired at the time that I made the edit and I have no relationship with him.

In both of these instances, I do not see how this is an argument supporting anything that CareFusion was or was not doing. Stating the facts about a medical study is not an endorsement of a product. The comparison of the two products is pivotal to the case, so it should be noted in the article. The fallout from this case included major discussions in the healthcare industry around national standards, influence, and recommending products. It is important to note that even in the face of this lawsuit, the National Quality Forum still recommends the formulation of chlorhexidine and alcohol that was originally recommended based on the evidence. This serves to clarify the misconception that CareFusion influenced the national standards setting committee. Based on the outcome of the case, they did not. The committee re-reviewed the case and upheld their prior evidence-based standard. This information has nothing to do with the off-label promotion, however. It does not advocate for or even mention the uses not approved by the FDA that CareFusion was alleged to have promoted to help sell ChloraPrep. So, to your assertion that I was "making an argument that they should have not been restricted from marketing it that way," I obviously disagree. The DOJ did not have an issue with the product being promoted for uses approved by the FDA. Those uses are the ones outlined in the New England Journal of Medicine study referenced above. The issue was with off label use. I'm actually not sure what those specific off label uses were, but none of the facts I included have anything to do with the off label use. They literally can't because it was the NEJM study that resulted in the FDA approval. Therefore any reference to the NEJM study is a reference to the FDA approved uses.

Having edited these Wikipedia pages, and having an interest in patient safety, the Wertkin situation is on my radar. I'm sure you've had a similar experience where you learn a lot from creating or editing a Wikipedia page, and therefore become a minor hobbyist in that topic. I enjoy sharing what I've learned about the CareFusion case and it is relevant to many in the healthcare field. It's also frequently misunderstood, so clarifying it has become important to me. The arrest of Jeffery Wertkin will be interesting to follow since the DOJ will have to review all of his cases just based on his arrest. The ramifications could be significant for many cases, not just CareFusion. The arrest of Jeffery Wertkin is a well-referenced page with a neutral point of view, in my opinion. It does not attempt to prove or sway opinion of innocence or guilt. All of the facts are just that, facts.

I hope that helps to clarify some of my edits and thinking on these topics. Again, just to reiterate and definitively answer your initial request for disclosure, I do not have any connection to any of the pages that I have created or edited other than being interested in the topics and wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. There are no relationships to disclose. Please let me know if I can clarify further.

References

--Radom event gen (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Well that was quite an answer!

I'm grateful that you were able to understand where I have been coming from, with how the edits look, and I appreciate your gracious and careful reply.

I do understand your interest in these medico-legal matters, and share it. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Pete Conrad Global Patient Safety Award for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pete Conrad Global Patient Safety Award is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Conrad Global Patient Safety Award until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)