Talk:Medical simulation

A fact from Medical simulation appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 December 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,232 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the simulation of medical procedures was first used by anaesthetists to reduce the rate of accidents?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/December.

Wikipedia

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

Please[edit]

Please contribute anything that you feel would improve this article. I do not claim to be an article writing expert and simply did my best. Jskiles1 (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article[edit]

Overall, medical simulation is still a rather new subject and undergoing plenty of change as technology speeds along at its breakneck pace. Since personal computers have become so powerful within the last fifteen years, it is suspected that simulations will become far more powerful and far cheaper than their predecessors. Better and cheaper technology results in better education and jobs while ultimately generating a positive feedback loop in terms of technological advance. Perhaps medical simulation will become so advanced that entire bodies can be recreated accurately and for little to no cost. Imagine being able to quickly reproduce a patient’s symptoms in a virtual environment with the ability to attempt different treatments under the simulation without harming the patient in anyway. Medical mistakes will soon be a thing of the distant past.

I moved this paragraph here for now because it's highly speculative - without sourcing, it comes over as original research, which we are not permitted to indulge in! If it can be sourced and perhaps reworded less speculatively, there's no problem with working it back into the article. EyeSerene^talk 10:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll touch it up this week. Jskiles1 (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links updated/removed[edit]

Have just updated a couple of links in Further Reading that didn't work any more. Found their new locations. Also removed three links that are broken and I could not locate:

Sekayvi (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission[edit]

Draft:Human Patient Simulator contains material that may be useful for expanding this article. ~KvnG 17:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medical simulation. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006114119/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/MultipleIntegratedLaserEngagement/index.html to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/MultipleIntegratedLaserEngagement/index.html

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 12:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debriefing section added[edit]

Hi everyone, I added a section regarding debriefing, but I need to apologize as it's my first time adding things and I didn't include "Edit summary" notes to the edits! I only found out about them now. If you have any questions at all about any of the edits I've done prior to filling those summaries out, please don't hesitate to connect! Thanks! --Ckchoung (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]