Talk:Hospice care in the United States

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hospice care in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1

Hospice care in the United States has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 22, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assessment

Here are a few quick notes from the requested WPMED assessment. Overall, this probably qualifies as B-class article, but I'll have to finish reading it first.

The article appears at first glance to be well sourced. In particular, I'd like to congratulate the editors on relying on a variety of high-quality sources.
The lead should be expanded. I suggest adding about two paragraphs that simply summarize the information below the table of contents. See WP:LEAD for more (and possibly better) ideas.
The section heads should use Sentence case instead of Title Case. This is not critical, but it is the house style (see sixth item in linked list).
You need to remove the links to books.google.com whenever the ISBN is known. ISBN is a magic word that takes the user to books.google.com (and many, many, many other options). We don't want to send every reader to books.google.com if they have a personal preference for something different.
The short citations and full citations are incorrectly mixed together. Fixing this can be a real pain, but here are the two common solutions:
1. Put it all in one section. The first time a ref is mentioned, list the whole thing. After that, just list the short citation. So ref [1] is currently "Connor, 4." and would become "Connor, Stephen R. (1998). Hospice: Practice, Pitfalls, and Promise. Taylor & Francis. p. 4. ISBN 1560325135.". Subsequent mentions of Connors' book would remain the same. This is somewhat less work for the editors.
2. Put it in two sections, completely splitting full and short citations. This means that you put (for example, using [9]) "Aiken, Lewis R. Dying, Death, and Bereavement. Allyn and Bacon. ISBN 0205082513." with the other full citations, and change the inline ref [9] to read just "Aiken, 214", even though the article (currently) only uses that book once. This may be slightly easier for some readers.
Just FYI, some editors dislike ==Sources== as a heading (because it might be confused with, in this instance, places to obtain hospice care). (You don't have to change the section name just because some editors would make other choices.)
The informality of the line "we know this patient's heart is bad why do we need to double check with an EKG" suggests a general copyedit might be appropriate, at least in a few places. Encyclopedic style is generally formal.

I also want to add: these are my thoughts on a quick scan through the article. You don't have to do anything as a result of them. A B-class assessment does not depend on making all of these changes. (A good article nomination might.) I'll post more in a few days, after I've read through it properly. (Please ping my talk page if I forget to come back!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first shot at an article, but I agree when I wrote the line about "we know this patients heart..." , I was thinking this is a bit informal. A lot of what was written was to try and make it easily understood for a patient or family member who is newly faced with a need for hospice. With that being said, if that wasn't the appropriate style I certainly understandTbolden (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article's actually in pretty good shape; if this is your first, then you've done quite well. With a little more work, I think you'll be able to surpass B-class and win a Good Article designation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick and helpful response. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moonriddengirl the links to google books came from you. I'd tend to agree with WhatamIdoing that the ISBN is sufficient but I will defer to since you did the reference work. You want them in or out? jbolden1517 ^Talk 06:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll get rid of them. :) I had no idea that the ISBN number would give so much information by itself. I'll work on some of these reference suggestions after I see what kind of "fires" might be waiting in the watchlist this morning. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Update: I believe that the concerns noted above have been addressed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

update

Congratulations on achieving a B-class article. Here are my comments, many of which are picky little details:

"coming to terms with a terminal prognosis" (first paragraph of the lead) sounds weaselly. Any reason we can just use the word "death" here?
"respite/respite inpatient" (third paragraph of the lead): I don't know what this means. Respite from a respite? Respite care at home versus respite care in an institution? Is this list supposed to be organized in order of increasing care levels?
"refusal to cooperate with treatment" (third paragraph of the lead): 'Treatment' is perhaps not the right word ('care', maybe?) Does this include because the patient simply wanted to leave?
About the section heading, "Hospice care in the United States": This should probably be removed entirely, since it violates WP:MSH (duplicates the name of the article). The items under it could be promoted to Level 2 headers (like ==this== instead of ===that====).
General order: I might put the levels of care above the providers' section.
About qualification for care: It might be useful to make the text more clear about who doesn't qualify for hospice care. Don't federal hospice guidelines require the patient to stop cure-oriented treatment? I was under the impression that this was a major problem with extending hospice care to children (whose parents naturally are unwilling to stop treatment when there's a small chance that the next thing might work).
Also, it seems like the availability of many additional cure-oriented medical treatments would also result in later hospice referrals. If you have a patient that has failed treatment for, say, a kind of cancer, and you then try the second, third or fourth option on the treatment list, then it simply takes longer to exhaust all of the plausible cure-oriented treatments before moving to palliative/hospice options. Every failed treatment puts the patient that much closer to dying before hospice care would be contemplated. Is this addressed anywhere in the reliable sources?
Expansion: Before attempting a Good Article nomination, please add information about hospice services for children (and younger adults). In addition to thinking that it's only for cancer and AIDS patients, many people think it's only for senior citizens/people on Social Security retirement, and I think that the emphasis on Medicare regulations in this article is likely to reinforce that misperception.
"Interdisciplinary team members" section: WP:MOSBOLD doesn't like the use of bold-face text. I'd change the titles to italics before a GA nomination. I might also (my own personal style) change this list to a bulleted list.
Would someone like to copy the information about the difference between interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary teams (re-written as necessary) to Team? The information is missing from the article about teams.
Can respite care be round-the-clock care? Does this let family members leave town for up to 5 solid days during a cycle? I'm having trouble understanding how this is different from regular care.

As always, if you disagree with my comments, then you can safely ignore them. I offer them only as optional suggestions.

I think that this article has a good chance at winning Good Article status. I hope that you'll pursue that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your time and attention. I am interested in pursuing that. While waiting further input from the other contributors, I'll merge some content to team as per your suggestion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the edit in the first paragraph "coming to terms with a terminal illness (changed to coming to terms with death), I prefer the original. Hospice staff definitely don't believe in euphemisms for death, however I do think it's a bit too harsh to say death and also quite honestly I think it reinforces the stereotype that hospice=death and while very, very, often that is true patient's do come off of hospice occassionally and the wording puts the emphasis on death instead of on the dying--not trying to be too philosphical here but that is my feeling about thatTbolden (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I had originally changed it to death, I've switched it back based on your note. I don't have strong feelings about it, but I think you make a good point in that death is the endpoint of a process, and that coping with terminal illness probably has broader implications than just coming to grips with the end. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tbolden, a patient that recovers in hospice probably still spends the pre-recovery time adjusting to their expected death, which is what that sentence is about. I'm not sure how the vaguer statement is different from what people do when they're diagnosed with a "probably curable, but a small number of people die from this" cancer. Adjusting to the idea that you have a 5% chance of dying and a long list of potentially curative treatments ahead of you is different from adjusting to the idea that you have a 95% chance of dying within the next six months, and no realistic options left. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category Hospice

I've created a Hospice Category which this article should be in (I'm not doing it due to the major revisions flag). I understand there was some issue about page moves for this page yesterday, I've checked the logs and I don't see anything. Can someone brief me on what is going on regarding that? jbolden1517 ^Talk 15:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard anything about that. What do you hear? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK talked to TBolden the problem was with Hospice. I've fixed jbolden1517 ^Talk 17:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no comment on the switch to a category so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hospice-related topics is now available if anyone here is interested. I'm assuming this will be non controversial. jbolden1517 ^Talk 03:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to from Hospice

Why is this article redirected to from Hospice? Is the term Hospice really only relevant to the United States? --80.167.222.118 (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good question. :) There used to be a list of hospice topics there, but for some reason an editor moved it to "List of hospice-related topics", which is probably not that easy to find. I've cobbled together something from this article and the article at Palliative care so that at least there's a bit under the main title. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wtf do hospices do. i keep reading just "care" and no info

I entirely agree with the comment below. These hospice articles on Wikipedia are truly mind boggling in that EVERY TOPIC related to hospice care is reviewed BUT FOR what hospice care ACTUALLY ENTAILS!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.196.6 (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bad article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but how far into the article did you read? What other information are you looking for, it is about care a specific type of care which focuses on pain and symptom management through pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions as well as treatment not just for the patient but the whole family Tbolden (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh wait never mind I saw your history of edits, your simply an idiot with nothing better to doTbolden (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hospice care in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509191614/http://www.caringinfo.org/LivingWithAnIllness/Hospice/PayingForHospice.htm to http://www.caringinfo.org/LivingWithAnIllness/Hospice/PayingForHospice.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hospice care in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hospice care in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patient in home carr

Patient can not move 2600:1702:1CB0:7A40:89B0:71AB:AD53:342D (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not for medical emergencies. Always dial 911 from any phone even if a cell phone has no activated service SOS still goes through. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Age range of those living under hospice care and some other tidbits

I was reading over the article and it mentions care for those under 21 and those who are a senior citizen but does nothing to address those under than a senior or middle age range. There are quite a few adults that cannot handle the alcohol or have been chronic for some time and then they become eligible for hospice due to their condition. But many in that young / middle age range cannot afford the full cost of care due to their situation and often have to appeal to non profit agencies to see if they can get no cost care based on qualification and needs of their condition. The payout to boarding facilities through insurance and a non profit organization are typically authorized 1 month up front and re-evaluated every month or so. Some people get more months up front while others are yeah, month to month. Thoughts on this? JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]