Talk:Nurse–client relationship

The nurse–client relationship in Hildegard E. Peplau's Interpersonal Relations Model theory is essential to nursing practice. It is the nurse–client interaction that is toward enhancing the client's well-being, and the client may be an individual, a family, a group or a community. Peplau thought the basic element of the relationship is what goes on between the nurse and patient (Interpersonal Theory 5). The relationship depends on the interaction of thoughts, feelings, and actions of each person (5). The patient will experience better health when all their needs are fully considered in the relationship (Peplau, Interpersonal Relations 9). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.72.87 (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits From Draft

moved into a new section by Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk)

As previously posted this page was subject to a Nursing course project intended to improve the quality of this page. We have worked very hard on this project to try and do just that by finding good quality secondary sources and collaboratively deciding what information would be the best to add. If any of the edits added to the page are of any interest or under question please consult our project talk page at this link: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Kg13la/ourSANDBOX. This has the whole process for the project and thus for the edits. In our sandbox you can also find our trial runs.

Our focus for this project was to improve the communication aspects of this page, which ended up being the therapeutic nurse behaviour section and the elements section. We attempted to fix up the entire page in addition. We went through and fixed grammar and sentence structure issues in both the original article and our additions. This was necessary to make the article more reliable and professional. The same reasoning was used when we adjusted the formatting and look of the article. We added a photo in the intention of capturing a user’s attention so that they will continue to read the article. This also improved the overall look and feel of the article. One of the last but most significant edit was removing the warning box at the top of the original article. No one wants to read an article that has a specific warning page for invalid information. We also removed the contract setting sections from the elements section because we felt that that information was described within the sections that were added. Sadly we had to remove the entire Peplau’s Theory section because it was solely based on primary information, which is not a part of the Wikipedia good article criteria. But we did add a small explanation of this theory in the introduction of this article.We decided to also remove the section named Practice of the Nurse-patient Relationship because the previous author left it unfinished and after our edits we felt that it had been covered anyway. The places where we added a significant amount of information was the elements section which includes boundaries and confidentiality, as well as the therapeutic nurse behaviors section which includes self-awareness, genuine, warm and respectful, empathy, cultural sensitivity, collaborative gaol setting and responsible, ethical practice. These sections were in the original article however little or no information was provided. We added extensive amounts of well researched secondary source information, which turned this onto the focus of the article. Proper citations were added for all of the new information

Although not everything in this article was fixed we tried our best to improve this page in the time that we had so that users can feel comfortable using the information. Some aspects of this page that require further edits would be the introduction. It remains a bit disconnected from the article and thus isn’t sufficient in providing a true summary of the information that follows. As well the introduction contains information that isn’t a section in the article but is important to the topic. The original section that it referenced had to be removed due to its use of primary information, as mentioned above. The sections client’s perspectives, building trust, emotional support and humor were not edited as extensively as the other sections of this page. Mostly grammar and sentence structure was changed. Due to the improper referencing it was difficult to determine what type of source the information was from. As well the way that the topics are talked about is in a research kind of way instead of a factual/ informational way; however they are very relevant topics to the nurse patient relationship, which is why we decided to leave them a part of this page. The thought was that hopefully someone could aid us in improving these sections, for we were specifically focusing on the communication parts of this page. As mentioned the references that already existed on this page were improperly cited in that they lacked the linkage to the information. This still requires a bit of work. We didn’t want to remove them because they are related to the sections that were also originally on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sg13bc (talk • contribs) 02:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

For our Nursing course project, we as a group edited the therapeutic nurse behaviour section. Previously, only the aspects of the therapeutic nurse behaviours were listed. We have now edited this section to include information on all aspects, and have added a section describing the therapeutic nurse behaviours in a nurse-cleint relationship. All group members added their information under each aspect; this information was then combined into a summary. I personally summarized and edited the therapeutic nurse behaviour section, and the responsible, ethical practice section. All information is properly cited from reliable secondary sources. We now feel confident that this page will be helpful to other users seeking information on the nurse-client relationship. Other big changes were made to the article such as: removing the warning box, including proper citations, and adding a photo. A lot of changes were made to the page, however, there is still a lot of information in other sections that could be added and edits to be made. Although we only edited a certain section, our edits now meet good article criteria in the way that it is well-written, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable, and illustrated. As mentioned above, if there are any concerns or questions please reference our sandbox at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Kg13la/ourSANDBOX. Here you will find all of our original edits, referenced sources, and our progress from start to finish. Thanks! Kg13la (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on Edits

Hey there! I was assigned the nurse client relationship article to give feedback on your edits. First of all, I want to say that I am very impressed with the overall enhancement of this article by your group. As I consider the good article criteria while reading through the article and the edits that you have made I can see that it has become more well-written, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable, and illustrated. The edit made to remove the primary sourced information on Peplau’s Theory was an excellent assessment since Wikipedia uses secondary and tertiary sources. The sources you contributed to this article prove to make it more verifiable than it had previously been. In the same vein, your evaluation of the remaining citation errors on this page seems to be accurate since it is not easy to find the corresponding references to citations. The judgment made to leave this as is was good since you would have been removing a lot of information and probably would have needed a lot more time to do the work required to fix this. Hopefully this is something that can be considered by other editors. I especially wanted to applaud your group for the addition of that image. In doing this you have successfully met the criteria of better illustrating this article. It definitely made me more interested in the page when I saw the image. I also think it was a good choice of an image because the nurse seems to reflect some of the behaviours mentioned in the article such as warmth and respect. It is slightly dated but is relevant to the page; therefore, its relevance takes precedence over its datedness and I would not worry about changing it. One thing I would suggest is in the image caption to change the word choice of “patient” to client since that is the word used in the article title. Otherwise, I think you did an excellent job. Good work being bold group! Lh13lg (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Lh13lg, please consider putting your comments on the article talk page. that way, you'll be part of a conversation with other editors about the changes and maybe help motivate other editors to continue with work on the article. LynnMcCleary (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We worked hard on this project as I'm sure you did so I really appreciate all of your great feedback. Your point about the picture caption is very valid and I will change that now. It's always good to get a new pair of eyes, I wouldn't have noticed this error. Thanks!--Sarah Greer 21:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sg13bc (talk • contribs)

Thank you Lh13lg for your great feedback! Also, LynnMcCleary this is the article talk page. Do you mean the group sandbox talk page? Dana (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Dana, I'm sorry for contributing to confusion. I'm reading so many of the class edits and reviews that I got mixed up. Lh13lg, I'm glad that you were bold enough to put your comments on the article talk page. Thank you. LynnMcCleary (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Lh13lg for your kind words and feedback! I completely agree with the point you have made about the caption of our photo. We will make this change! Kg13la (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys - Nice expansion of this article! One thing you might consider: Several of the sections are long single paragraphs. If you break those up into two or three paragraphs, you will increase the readability of the article. Thanks for your work. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 14:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you EricEnfermero that is a great suggestion, we can definitely do that over the week! Dana (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey group, great job with editing and fixing up this article, when viewing if before the changes the article definitely lacked some serious content involving practical sources and organization. I think that you guys did a great job adding important information and creating a flow of the article. I think the biggest and most drastic change was obviously the edition of the “Therapeutic Nurse Behaviours” section that involves the subtitles “self-awareness, genuine, warm-respectful, empathy, cultural sensitivity, collaborative goal setting, responsible, ethical practice”. These subtitles in-fact the whole entire section is well-written and very necessary to this article. This article has gained some educational value in the fact that it is more credible and continues on a neutral level. The picture you have added is relevant and a great addition. The narrowing of the Peplau’s section was a good idea, and moving it to the introduction was a wise decision as it- in my opinion- creates more of a flow in the article. The sources that have been added make the article more credible and I really like how you incorporated the original articles under each subheading in a link, so if the reader wants to understand a subtopic in more detail the access is available. The subheading cultural sensitivity is very well written and also I think extremely important as a nurse-client relationship could become tricky when nursing a patient of a different culture or language. It appears that you have worked hard on this topic and I think the hard work had paid off. The article looks great, the only suggestion I have for the article is, although the article is spaced nicely, sometimes the larger chunks of information are overwhelming, so maybe breaking the information into smaller paragraphs would make it easier to read, but this may just be my opinion. Overall, nice improvements Md13sd (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Md13sd and EricEnfermero for your feedback. We will do our best to try and divide the information into paragraphs.--Sarah Greer 21:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Md13sd for your kind words! I fully agree with Sarah! Dana (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I was also given the nurse-client relationship article to edit and I must also say you all did an amazing job editing and adding to this article to make it a stronger article that readers will understand. I must say, great job on having some background information on Peplau’s theory and much detail at the beginning of the article and the theory. I feel this really draws the readers to want to further read the article and understand what the nurse-client relationship theory is about and where is was formed. Seeing how the article was before, I can tell your group has put in a lot of effort enhancing this article and definitely flows much better and is consistent throughout the article. I love the lay-out of the article as it is easier to follow and understand the key points of the article without confusion. I have to agree with the others that sometimes having larger paragraphs with information can be overwhelming to some readers and some might feel as they are getting lost in all that information. Perhaps breaking them into smaller paragraphs will help others read it better and understand it more clearly. The sources that were contributed throughout the article make the article more verifiable and also the uses of secondary sources were well done as well and follow the Wikipedia criteria to not use primary sources. Many people learn and read differently and the addition of the picture really enhances what the article is about. For myself, when I noticed this image it helped me put the article together and make connections with what was written to what the image is showing. Great idea on adding this in! For sure draws people to want to learn and read more about it. Overall, I would say great job on editing and adding to this article! You all contributed well and enhanced this article for the better! Cv14bk (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much Cv14bk! Dana (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cv14bk, I fully agree with you and the others who made the point about the large paragraphs.Kg13la (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I made the paragraph edits to the page. Thank you everyone for the feedback on the article! Dana (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much Dana for making those changes! It was clear that was something we had to improve on. Kg13la (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This article showed really great improvement from previous iterations. I'll base my feedback on 6 criteria of a good articles since I believe it to be the goal of improving Wikipedia articles.

• The article is very well-written in comparison to previous version of the article. Expanding the introduction was a needed and well executed idea. It provides better initial insight into the rest of the article than the initial version. Althought I will touch upon this later it does a good job of broadly introducing the subject which is one of the criteria for a good article. Expanding the elements of the nurse-client relationship was another significant improvement. You intellectually and effectively expanded on those ideas they became much more clear and informative. Sentence structure and grammar is also vastly superior to the previous version, contributing to the clarity and flow of the article. The major problem that the other 'feedbackers' and you have already acknowledged (good job) is the bulk of your paragraphs. This makes it difficult to find specific information that a reader might want and makes it tiresome to read entirely. Organizing the paragraphs into smaller ideas might improve understanding. Also having information regarding Peplau in the introduction and not part of the article might be a little confusing but this is something you already addressed. A future direction of the article might be to expand on it in regards to the nurse-client relationship.
• Removing primary research and adding in proper citations was another major improvement to the article. Verifying your information means that what you are stating is credible, verifiable and it means you aren't plagiarizing. This makes your work trustworthy and relevant. Removing the original research is not only something that should be done due to wikipedia's policy of only secondary and tertiary sources, in your case it provided greater clarity to your article. In previous iterations the primary sources did not really help explain anything and was difficult to read and understand, it literally felt like clutter trying to fill the page. With it gone and only proper research interpretation your article is a lot more cohesive.
• I touched on this earlier but you did a great job maintain broad coverage. This can be seen in your inclusion of Genuine, warm and respectful Empathy, Cultural sensitivity, Collaborative goal setting, Responsible and ethical practice. This really broadens the view of the article by tieing in many aspects of the nurse-client relationship previously ignored. Also you do a great job avoiding unnecessary detail and staying on topic.
• You also did a great job creating a neutral viewpoint for your article. This is evident by the removal of primary research and the opinion-based sections. It helped to keep better flow and unbiased information makes the article feel more accurate and cohesive since people have a habit of trying to refute or prove you wrong, this issue is solved through the neutrality.
• Stability is difficult to judge since your article is going to experience frequent activity in the next week and previously it was hardly touched so we'll just ignore this one. But I believe the foundation you created with this article will help keep it stable for future editors. Good symbolism I know.
• Wonderful job adding illustrations. You are already applying feedback given by other people by changing patient to client in the description. Although it doesn't really affect your article something to keep in mind is trying to find a more recent photo to keep your article relevant as your photo is dated. Some readers might be unable to recognize that as a nurse-client interaction especially as we progress into the future and newer generations being born into newer environments.

Overall the article is a great improvement and you did a really good job on it. Although it might be impossible to achieve within the scope of our practice something to perhaps add to the article is how the nurse client relationship developed aka a brief history focusing more on how to changed to its modern form. The reason this might be a good idea because looking at your source you have information from a variety of time periods to very recent to quite dated. But then again I don't have enough knowledge about the subject to know if there is enough good quality sources explaining the changes to this relationship. Zk13be (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Zk13be for your comments. I can see that you read our article carefully and fully. It seems like you put a lot of effort into giving us feedback, which we all really appreciate. It is so nice to hear that our hard work paid off and also to know how to improve our work.

I looked on Wikimedia for an image for quite a while to see if I could find an image. A lot of the images that pertain to this subject were quite old; some were even black and white. I found two images that I thought were suitable for this article. I’m posting the other option underneath. It is also a bit dated. I did not want to stray off into the internet to find an image for I wanted to ensure there were no copy right laws. I also went back and looked again on Wikimedia as well as the internet but I wasn’t satisfied with the results. Although the images are dated I think that they represent the nurse client relationship the best. Hopefully some new pictures will be added in time to Wikimedia so that this page can be up to date. Maybe once we are into our nursing careers we will be able to contribute a picture that would contribute to the relevance of this article.

Nurse takes a patient's blood pressure

I definitely agree that it can be confusing to readers that we have included Peplau’s theory into the introduction and not have any information on it later in the page. Research and sources are required to create a good section on this topic, which we simply just do not have time for within the time frame of this project because our first priority was to improve the communication section of this page. Our intention was to keep that information in the introduction to show the relevant that theory has to the nurse client page. Also to spark interest so that they could investigate the topic, which is why some links are included related to Peplau’s theory. This is definitely a valid point and hopefully now that this page is improved a bit it will draw more attention and future wikipedians can aid in this section. The suggestion about adding a history component to this article was a really interesting insight. I also do not know if this has a lot of secondary sources available. My guess would be that you would have to read between the lines when looking at the history of nursing or investigate by looking at resources that are old and comparing them with new ones and observing the evolution that way. This is a creative and great suggestion! I never would have thought about adding history as a component. This too would require a lot of research and hard work but it could be done. Now that this idea is on the article talk page it now has the room to grow and be added. --Sarah Greer 20:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Zk13be for the time and effort you put into your feedback, Sarah explained everything that I have to say. I really hope the article will continue to grow. Dana (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Professor comments re: student editing

@Dg13gq, Jg11pv, Kg13la, and Sg13bc:, I want to add my congratulations to you on your achievement with this editing and your responses to your peer evaluations. You've greatly improved the article - beyond what I hoped for with this assignment. I noticed only one small change I recommend making - related to neutrality. You say "A nurse should always act in the best interest..." Maybe you could try something like "Nurses are expected to always act in the best interests..."

If you have any energy left for this article, I think it would be appropriate to remove content that relies solely on single primary research sources, in keeping with Wikipedia reliance on secondary sources.

I like the additional photo you found and put here. I think it could be added to the main page.

Future editors might consider inserting links to other articles (e.g., linking the culture section to related articles), maybe linking to other articles such as interpersonal relationship, nursing ethics, or nursing.LynnMcCleary (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have tried my best to apply all of your suggestions. In removing the primary information the rest of the original article had to be removed. I have left the section headings as they were because as mentioned above (somewhere) that we thought these sections are important to discuss in the nurse-client relationship. Hopefully, future editors can help fill those sections and make this a complete and stable page. --Sarah Greer 13:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletions as they consisted in blanking entire sections. Other editors will contribute to this article and add secondary sources eventually. --Jelly Bean MD (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback LynnMcCleary! I attempted to make some edits based on your feedback but it seems as though Sarah has already done so. Thanks again! Kg13la (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your suggestions and feedback on the article. It is very rewarding to know that our hard work has paid off. Dana (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you LynnMcCleary for your feedback. I went back to thoroughly read the article over and your neutrality suggestion is good tip to make the article even better. Sarah has already jumped on making these changes which we all appreciate. Thanks a lot. Jane (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)