User:MaddyEngelsma

Article evaluation on Nursing Assessment

• The most distracting part of this article is all the terms that it includes a lot of terms. For a nursing student such as myself I knew what most of these terms were, but to the average Wikipedia user this may not have been as clear.
• This article does not contain a heavy argument in a certain direction. This article contains mostly facts on the nursing assessment topic.
• This article focus's a lot on one part of the nursing assessment. This article doesn't include anything about AIDET. This is a crucial part of a nursing assessment and this is underrepresented in this article.
• Some of the citations in this article seem legitimate. However, the citations lead you to another wikipedia source so this may not be as legitimate as it seems. One of the citations I tried to open, lead me to a wikipedia source that had a big notice on the top saying the article needed to be evaluated by an actual psychologist. So not all the citations are legitimate in this article.
• The sources that these citations come from appear to be mostly from wikipedia. These sources are mostly factual, and they therefore do not contain any sort of bias.
• Based on my knowledge on how do to a nursing assessment there is a lot of things that could be added to this article. I would start by adding information regarding the many terms they added to this article. Also I would update the need for AIDET. There are other parts of this article that could be improved by newer evidence-based practice.
• In the talk section of this article the only significant change was that someone made this article of mid importance in Nursing Wikipedia.
• This wikipedia article is strictly facts, if you were a niave reader you would have to take this article at face value. In class we have learned a lot about the importance of evidence based practice. This is not mentioned once in this article.

Potential Article's for Editing

• Nurse anesthetist. This article is something that is interesting to me, and something I want to learn more about. When reviewing the talk page one of the biggest things I noticed was the need for more referencing in the article. Some of the facts represented aren't properly cited, so the reader does not know where this information has come from. So in editing this article I would work on adding more reliable citations.
• Nursing shortage. This article is fascinating to me, because this is something that I'm going to run into as a nurse. There are a shortage of nurses, and sometimes this means you cannot provide the best possible care. One of the primary concerns in the talk section of this paper is that the statistics that are presented are out of date. This shows the importance of updating and editing medical journals and using recent and current articles.
• Nurse practitioner. This article is also interesting to me. This article shows the steps I can take if I would like to continue in my education. However, one of the things that were talked about in the talk page is the formatting of this article. The formatting was unclear, making it difficult to gather information from it. So if I were to edit this article I would consider how to reformat it and a more clear and concise way.
• Opioid overdose. I recently wrote a paper on pain management and the issues that arise with opioid overdose. The article raise several important topics to write include when discussing opioid overdose. There were some citation issues with this article that need to be addressed, as well as important formatting issues that need to be resolved to help clarify the topic for the reader.

Article Edits on Opioid overdose

• "Examples of opioids are: morphine, heroin, tramadol, oxycodone, and methadone. It differs from opioid dependency." This statement is not cited. This is not common knowledge, therefore the author needs to cite where they are getting their information from.
• "Opioid use disorders resulted in 51,000 worldwide deaths in 2013 up from 18,000 deaths in 1990" I would redo this. When I initially read this article, this statement was quite confusing. The wording can be done better to clarify what the author is trying to say.
• " Prescription opioid overdose was responsible for more deaths in the United States from 1999-2008 than heroin and cocaine overdose combined" this statement needs to be edited. Heroin is an opioid. Therefore this statement doesn't make sense. Heroin is contributing to the opioid deaths.
• "Alcohol also causes respiratory depression and therefore when taken with opioids can increase the risk of respiratory depression and death" This is not a sign or symptom. This is about Opioid overdose not respiratory depression. This can be a relevant fact to include in your topic, but it must be worded differently. This makes it sound like the writer is writing about respiratory depression not opioid overdose. Making this statement irrelevant to the topic. This should be included with co-ingestion.
•  "Other CNS depressants, or "downers", muscle relaxers, pain relievers, anti-convulsants, anxiolytics (anti-anxiety drugs), treatment drugs of a psychoactive or epileptic variety or any other such drug with its active function meant to calm or mitigate neuronal signaling (barbiturates, etc.) can additionally cause a worsened condition with less likelihood of recovery cumulative to each added drug." This needs to be cited properly.
• "Florida's pill mill law addressed pill mills, or rogue pain management clinics where prescription drugs are inappropriately prescribed and dispensed, and required these clinics to register with the state, have a physician-owner, created inspection requirements, and established prescribing and dispensing requirements and prohibitions for physicians at these clinics." This sentence could be formatted differently. I would format it ," Florida's pill mill law addressed pill mills, rogue pain management clinics, where prescription drugs are inappropriately prescribed and dispensed. Florida required these clinics to register with the state, have a physician-owner, and created inspection requirements. They also established prescribing and dispensing requirements and prohibitions for physicians at these clinics."
• "^] A longer-acting variant of naloxone is naltrexone." This needs to be cited properly.

Edit's Made to Opioid Overdose

Editing an Existing Article[edit]

I am a nursing student and I have chosen to edit this article. I wanted to include a couple of edits that will ensure that the information presented will be cited properly, and will be much more clear and concise. These are the areas I've chosen to make edits to; "A longer-acting variant of naloxone is naltrexone." I will be citing this statement using the following reliable source.

Lee, J. D., Nunes, E. V., Novo, P., & Bachrach, K. (2017, November). Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32812-X

"Other CNS depressants, or "downers", muscle relaxers, pain relievers, anti-convulsants, anxiolytics (anti-anxiety drugs), treatment drugs of a psychoactive or epileptic variety or any other such drug with its active function meant to calm or mitigate neuronal signaling (barbiturates, etc.) can additionally cause a worsened condition with less likelihood of recovery cumulative to each added drug." I will be citing this statement using the following reliable source.

Filter, E., Gorczynkski, L., & Fernandes, J. Fatal Intoxication With a Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor, Lorazepam, and Codeine.[Report]. American Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology, 28(4), 361-363.

"Opioid use disorders resulted in 122,000 deaths globally in 2015 up from 18,000 deaths in 1990." This statement is cited correctly. However, I plan on making just a few changes to the wording of this statement. Initially when I read this statement I was confused, so I hope to rephrase this so it's clearer to the reader. MaddyEngelsma (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I also added several links within this article to other wikipedia articles. This help the readers define terms they don't know within the article.

Responding to other Wikipedians

I made my edits to the article Opioid Overdose. I noticed that a fellow wikipedian suggested I was aware of the guidelines necessary to make a citation. I was aware of the criteria, and cited my information using reliable sources from PubMED.

Peer Critiques

I included peer critiques on the articles Smoking Cessation and Nursing Care Plans. I included my reports in the sandboxes of Morgan Howerzyl, and Chrissy Carnagie.

Maddy, I am thoroughly impressed with your identification of areas that need to be edited in this article. I was genuinely surprised at the lack of information included in the original article, especially because the problems we are experiencing with opioid abuse. You did a really great job identifying weak areas of the article that were either incorrect, or irrelevant that required improvement. You also identified areas that required better sources to justify the facts that were stated. Overall, your additions to the article clarified many sentences that weren't formatted well and added detail where it was greatly needed. I clicked on many links in the article and they took me to the correct articles with the associated title. I would consider identifying/defining the word epidemiology for individuals who many not know what that words means. Well done, Chrissy Carnagie

Reflective Essay

Wikipedia was a unique experience in which I was able to use the extensive GVSU database to share the knowledge I have. I chose to critique and make edits to an article called Opioid Overdose. This is such a prevalent topic in our society today. Opioid abuse and addiction is on the rise which is why it's such an important topic. Wikipedia is such an awesome platform that allows anybody to have access to important information for free. I chose this article so I could help provide important free information to everyone who needs this information desperately.

I critiqued this article in a different way than I did when I critiqued my research article. These aren't actual research articles. So the first thing I did when critiquing whether or not the information presented in the article was critical to the topic presented. I also looked to see if the article remained neutral. This is very important in research. Introducing one's personal bias takes away from the facts and information presented in the article. Also I made sure that the article was not repetitive, and did not over present certain information. I also checked the citations to ensure that they were accurate, and were up to code with wikipedia's policy on what is a reliable research article. I also ensured that the information presented was up to date.

In summary the edits I made to the wikipedia were meant to present clearer and conciser information. Also there were some facts that were not supported by reliable sources. So my biggest concerns were these two things, and ensuring by the time I was done editing that these problems were fixed. So I added several different new sources which were found using the database PubMED. This database brings up to date information regarding important medications. In this case I was looking for information related to opioids, and various facts related to congestion with other items.

In our peer reviews, we used the same method we used to critique our own articles. I critiqued two different articles. The first article was Smoking Cessation, and the second article was Nursing Care Plans. I made sure that the information presented in the article was important to the topic. I also critiqued whether or not the editors introduced their own bias to the articles. I made sure that they did not add repetitive information to their articles. I also tested their citation links to ensure that the reader knew where the information came from. The peer review of my article showed that I needed to maybe add one more link within my article to help the reader understand what the word epidemiology meant. I took that into consideration when re-evaluating my article.

I also recieved a critique from a fellow wikipedian. This fellow wikipedia editor said that I needed to be careful when contributing wikipedia citations. He wanted me to ensure that I was following wikipedia criteria in regards to reliable resources to include in my article. I ensured that I did find reliable resources for my article by following Wikipedia's policy. This among other things includes the use of the database called PubMED.

The biggest learning experience I take away from working with wikipedia is that anyone can contribute to these articles. However, it is dedicated Wikipedia editors that keep the information presented truthful and factual. Editors play a very important role ensuring that what the public sees is presented on wikipedia as factual information that is beneficial to the reader.