Talk:Bedpan

Bedpan

This is not just a dicdef. It is just an encyclopedic article below the substub line. Just keep it. --SuperDude 08:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

etymology

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 May 7#origin of the word and usage of a bedpan?. --Mathew5000 10:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 June 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FuturepharmD2025, Jred.fong678, VeronicaCraik, Dini2025 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Whtchris.

— Assignment last updated by W.Wu UCSFPharm (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023 Proposed Group Edits

Input potential ideas/concepts to further information about bedpans Jred.fong678 (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Can potentially look into what disease states use bedpans very frequently, risk of infection with bedpans, ways to mitigate risk of infection such as disinfection, or any innovations that are currently replacing use of bedpans?Jred.fong678 (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Add history of bedpans (creation/design),use/positioning/instructions, design/ergonomics/capacity to the introduction

Add new sections for Cleaning and disinfection and list of alternatives to bedpans and cost benefit of each

FuturepharmD2025 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Laura to add name etymology and history section + images?

Veronica global usage data (new section) and content

Imad to add section on infection control + ownership of sanitization and cleaning

Jared to look into alternatives (and why we would/wouldn't use them) and anything else relevant add section

FuturepharmD2025 (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

References

reviewed by group and edits pending

Laura to edit ref 2 and 8, potentially predatory for 2 and 8 needs more details FuturepharmD2025 (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

References reviewed by Dini2025 (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)dini2025 for bedpan management, sanitization and infection control: removed duplicates; ref#11 was present three times.

References reviewed by VeronicaCraik (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC) VeronicaCraik

references reviewed by Jred.fong678 (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC) for the alternatives section. No duplicate references.

Peer Review

Peer Reviews:

The article does well on explaining the history behind the use and comparing that to the use today. Specifying which populations may benefit from Bedpans the most helps create better understanding for its use. There is clear structure in first presenting the background and then into the history. The edits supports inclusion by using neutral words like "people" and "individuals." The edits also include alternatives for both male and female urinals. Gcwu (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

These recent edits contributed substantially to improving the quality of the context on this page. The history section was a great addition to include, especially the with the use of images of bedpans throughout the centuries. Are there any studies that your group found that looked at the impact on health after the emphasis on sanitation of bedpans was implemented? Statistical data, if any will help improve this page going forward. Overall, your group achieved most of the goals that you proposed. Future editors can contribute by adding more in regards to the risk of infection. The references listed are freely available to the public to review for themselves. There are a good variety of secondary sources ranging from textbooks, articles, and even literature reviews that were cited from. -W.Wu UCSFPharm (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments on history and great suggestion on adding statistics. We looked extensively for meta-analyses but mostly found individual studies that were done. We do have a pending section for global usage where we plan to add more statistics on types of bedpan usage around the world so hopefully we can add more data there. FuturepharmD2025 (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The article maintains a neutral tone throughout and avoids relying on medical jargon to communicate the information. The new edits provide more inclusive language and information. There was one paragraph (final paragraph of use and indication) that did not have a source cited for the information where a source could be useful - specifically the possibility of microorganism growth in ergonomic bedpans and possibly be more explicit about the improvements in cleaning and sterilization. Isa3will (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this specific feedback, and I will look for a microorganism growth citation that is different from the earlier C.diff reference used previously. VeronicaCraik (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this information, when we first received this article it had identifications such as "patients" so we made tried to make it more generalized. It was also nice to know that there are also alternatives to the usual bedpan and can be more suited to an individuals needs like indwelling catheters being able to be used for long-term use for urinary waste, etc. Jred.fong678 (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Overall, the authors achieve the overall goals for improvement. In the article, all the content that the author mention are described in a very clear organization and everything is relevant and is very helpful for the audience to learn more about the bedpan. Moreover, the reference are all reliable and they all can support the article very well. However, the only thing that brings to my attention is when talking about the infection control, providing more information about preventing being infected by the C.diff and E. coli may be helpful since they are two most common bacteria that can be potentially be infected in the hospital. For example, maybe finding some more information about how many C.diff and E.coli may be leftover on the bedpan after using disinfector machines and if patients are possible to be infected by those remaining C.diff and E.coli.Whtchris (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC) 98.35.149.229 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)dini2025: Thank you for your comment, we spent a lot of time discussing which references to use so it is highly appreciated that you took notice! I agree with your statement about expanding on E. Coli and C. Diff- there's more areas where I could have expanded on this information. For example, I mentioned that with a specific tool it can kill some organisms but I agree that I could have expanded on how it spreads, why it's a problem etc. Thanks again.