Talk:Pediatric early warning signs

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 27 December 2017 by reviewer SwisterTwister (talk · contribs).

Health and fitness

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Peer Review

I really liked how it was easy to identify and define what PEWS was. It allows the reader to gain insight on the overall topic of the article and what it is based on. I also liked how the article begins with the history of how it came about and how it has evolved over time. Including the development of PEWS helps the reader to understand the benefits and concepts related to pediatric care.

In the section of "Pediatric Early Warning Signs", I think it would be helpful for you to go further into depth about normal vital ranges and signs of deterioration. This will allow the reader to identify situations in which the PICU may be critical pertaining to the child's care. However, I did find it helpful that there was a chart provided to refer to. This helped me understand the scores they use for cardiovascular, respiratory, and behavior.

I think you guys have a really good start to your wiki page and with just a little more editing and additional information you guys will be good to go!

Kelly Kilber 02:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. The PEWS section hasn't been added yet, but that is exactly what I was thinking. Besides heart rate and respirations, do you think there are any other vital parameters I should include? Kmartsbest (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a fairly solid "lead" section. I did see that in paragraph 2 there seemed to be one long run on sentence. Also I found the mention of MEWS in the PEWS section a little confusing which made me question if that sentence is entirely necessary? and if so- is it supported. I would also state the history/neccessity of the PEWS like why it was created before laboring on as to how to use the resource. This I think can be reordered in a way that is smoother.Joce.lee (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will go back and review this area and see if there is a way that it can be clarified in a better way. If it cannot be reworded in a better way, we can see about removing this paragraph in the article. Thank you for your input. Ll128576 (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MEWS was the first system ever created to use early warning signs to improve patient care. The creators of the PEWS used the success of MEWS as a baseline and adapted it to fit pediatric parameters to improve pediatric care. I will revisit it again with more sleep and try to hone in on that idea.Kmartsbest (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

I think you guys have a very strong article, especially for a brand new one! I think that the information given in the article is very solid but I do think you could use more references to back this information up. Especially in the "Development of PEWS" section. The rest of the article is very well cited but I think this section could benefit from proof of validity. Other than that I think you guys have done an awesome job on this! Alliacev (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We both agree in this area, although it seems to be a challenge to find information on this topic. I will continue to search for information in this area. Thank you for your input. Ll128576 (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Overall I think this is a good article with a lot of useful information. I would make sure there are enough references with all the info regarding PEWS. Also, corrected a few punctuation and spacing errors. Great article! ALAlmond7288 (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you, feel free to check spelling too. Spelling and grammar are my weakness. Kmartsbest (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]