Talk:Walk-in clinic

Study

Is it possible to use this study in the article?--Taeyebaar (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This question is about this source: Brown, JB; Bouck, LM; Østbye, T; Barnsley, JM; Mathews, M; Ogilvie, G (March 2002). "Walk-in clinics in Ontario. An atmosphere of tension". Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien. 48: 531–6. PMID 11935717.

I think it could be used, but only in very limited ways, because it's a primary source and only covers one Canadian province. I'm not sure what you would say about it, though. "Patients with minor healthcare problems don't like waiting for hours in an emergency room (where they oughtn't be anyway, if it's not an emergency), and some family practice physicians in Ontario are mad at the walk-in clinics for being open in the evenings and for making same-day visits, instead of making these patients wait until the family practice doc chooses to be available" doesn't seem to be very useful. "Ontario physicians working in emergency departments think it's cheaper to treat the common cold in the emergency department instead of at a walk-in clinic" would be laughable. I don't think that you could use it to support general claims, like WICs are disliked because it cuts into other people's profit lines, because it's all Ontario-specific. But it might be possible to use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I placed it in the external links section. Since it's about the topic but does not cite any statements of the article, it belongs in the external links section.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Reversion

Taeyebaar, I don't understand why you reverted everything. Could you please tell me which sourced paragraph I actually deleted? Could you please tell me why you reverted to a version that has bad capitalization, a WP:REFERS violation in the first sentence, and that also removed three new, sourced paragraphs? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your edit removed vital and reliably sourced paragraphs, which clearly belongs in the article. You can clearly see the citations next to them.--Taeyebaar (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

[1] here is the diff showing all that was removed.--Taeyebaar (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the version by WhatamIdoing because it does seem to add a number of useful changes. I don't see that any large quantity of material has been lost. Taeyebaar or others could always add material back in. Drchriswilliams (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the material I added was there first, i am going to restore it and have to ask you to re-add the "useful changes". It's unfair to remove what somebody already put there first and ask them to put it again. Instead leave what was already there and re-add the "useful changes" separately.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Taeyebaar,

Wikipedia doesn't have any sort of first-come, first-served rule, but I would be willing to try that, only I can't actually figure out what facts I allegedly removed. Could you please actually look at the changes and if you find even a single paragraph that I completely removed, and then would you post that paragraph here? In the meantime, I'll restore the three brand-new paragraphs that you've just deleted for no apparent reason again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a wikipedia policy but it's a general rule of courtesy. The current version of the article seems fine and for the second time, I provided the diff where you removed my edits, which now seem to be restored, so therefor Im satisfied.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Taeyebaar, yes, you gave me a diff. I'm pretty good at reading diffs; I spend hours and hours every week looking at them. I still cannot find any single paragraph that I supposedly deleted. Can you?

Let me help you out: The first change I made was to fix the stupid capitalization error in the first sentence. My next change was to replace the word "describes" with "is", to make it comply with WP:REFERS. My third step was to take one long paragraph that contained two ideas, and to split it into two paragraphs. None of that seems like "removing your edit" to me. You reverted all of that. Is any of that "your edit" that you're trying to protect here?

I really do not know what your complaint is. If you won't tell me exactly what your complaint is, and if I try to improve this article again, then I'm probably going to make you upset again. Could you please be very specific about which paragraph you want to WP:OWN here? Or, alternatively, could you please restore all of the changes that I made that don't bother you? I'm thinking that not reverting the improvements that you do agree with would also be "a general rule of courtesy" that could be very helpfully applied here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

NYT story

Here's a story in the New York Times by Aaron Carroll, who is a pediatrician and also writes a column for JAMA. He reviews the published evidence for retail clinics, including policy statements by medical organizations and publications in the peer-reviewed journals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/upshot/the-undeniable-convenience-and-reliability-of-retail-health-clinics.html
The Undeniable Convenience and Reliability of Retail Health Clinics
Aaron E. Carroll
New York Times
APRIL 12, 2016
--Nbauman (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Globalize tag

There are "walk-in clincs" in the UK. The significant difference is that we have different reimbursement systems. You can do a PubMed search for "walk in clinics" and see whether they are talking about the same thing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%28%22bmj%22[Journal]%29%20AND%20walk-in%20clinic https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1853183/ --Nbauman (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Globalisation probably is a good idea - the whole different reimbursement argument is an interesting one granted, but merging them will probably add value as long as it's carefully done and quite a few other articles have that globalised aspect despite representing different types of payment (plus the difference as far as I know is just US is largely payment by results/activity whilst NHS is block contract). Any thoughts would be appreciated. Happy to tag-in on the NHS side and see what I can find outside of the US/UK

Dbe1997 (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 2 June 2020

The photo in this article is NOT representative of a walk-in clinic at all. Consider replacing it and check teh alt-image tags as well Also, solvhelath (a private "directory aggregator" company) had been creating backlinks with conflicts of interest. The link to doctors express in the references was similar and actually pointed to AFCUrgent care. These were edited.SJNY2020 (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A few things:

• Could you add a COI disclosure on your user page? (i.e. who are you working with? see WP:COI)
• I agree 100% that that picture is horrible, do you have one in mind?
• I don't see any backlinks, am I missing them?
• I am not sure what you mean saying "The link to doctors express in the references was similar and actually pointed to AFCUrgent care. These were edited."

 Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 19:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

i am going to ping @SJNY2020: to remind him to respond.Trains2050 (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

In any case, if you wish to add a proper picture the way to do this would be to upload it at Commons/or here (depending on copyright status, though frankly if you have a COI that means you can probably take a picture yourself) or ask at WP:FFU. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)