Talk:SBAR

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vanovjen. Peer reviewers: Williann1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of student edits

Our group is planning on making edits to this article in order to enhance the SBAR article. We have discussed and come to a conclusion that we want to elaborate on each step of SBAR as well as wanting to add some background knowledge and history of this communication process because this assignment is required as a part of our Nursing 1P10 Communications course in university. We have noticed that the original SBAR article is vague, incomplete and lacking references. If anyone is interested in what we are contributing to this article, please feel free to do so! Be bold! :) Vs12vf (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Our nursing group has now added all the edits we are planning to add to this article. We decided that it was best to add a lot more information because we found the article was lacking key information. We added a history section, to give readers a better understanding of how SBAR came to be and who started it, we then decided to elaborate on the elements of SBAR and add references that were lacking previously. Our group found that previously it was quite difficult to understand exactly how SBAR communication can be used in real life situations, so we have decided to add and examples section that could then give any readers a real-life simulation of how one can use SBAR in a health care setting. We also decided that it would be best to add a "effects of SBAR use" section, that way we could further elaborate on the topic and show how SBAR actually improves communication between health care professionals and in a health care setting. Lastly. we added a limitations section to the article, every situation has a downside to it, and we thought it would be best to address the setbacks currently affecting SBAR communicationVr13zk (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Previously, the article only had the introduction and a section on the elements of SBAR, with very little references. We hope that the edits we made to the article not only helps make this once weak article more up to standards with the criteria for a wikipedia good article but also helps future readers better understand the topic of SBAR and how it came to be a form of health care communication. If anyone has any other edits to add feel free to go ahead and do so, shortly there should be more students from our class coming to give us feedback on our edits here Thank you and be bold! Vr13zk (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, group! I have some feedback and recommendations for you based on Wikipedia's established "good article criteria"!

I think your newly edited article is organized well in terms of your headings and layout, however I noticed some grammatical errors, some repeated words and a couple of extra/missing letters throughout! In your Background section, I noted the sentence, "During this stage one should have the patients chart ready...". In this context, the word "patients" should be "patient's". In your Recommendation section, there is a repeated word in the sentence "...possible solutions that could correct correct the situation". There are multiple cases of both of these situations throughout the article, so I recommend that you guys go back through the article and just touch up those minor errors to make your article more well-written and professional! Another thing I noted was that some sentences were long and a little difficult to follow. For the most part, the article is well-written in the sense that the sentence structure is short, concise and easy to follow. However, under the "Effects of SBAR Use" heading, I found that this sentence - "SBAR use has not only improved the relationship between the doctors and the nurses but had a dramatic increase of overall health of patients and decrease hospitalizations and deaths efficiently improved the nurse and doctor communication which led to a reduction of unexpected deaths." - was difficult to follow. I suggest maybe breaking it down into two sentences or restructuring it so that it is easier to understand.

As far as verifiability goes, you have done a great job of adding references to make a major improvement to the original article. This makes the page way more credible to readers.

You also effectively made sure that the page is broad in its coverage. When going through the article, I found that there was a lot of information on SBAR and I was effectively able to come to a general understanding of the communication technique, how to use it, and the advantages and disadvantages of it. Since it seems like a big topic, you effectively stayed focused on SBAR while addressing main topics and keeping the tone neutral.

My overall assessment of your article edits is that you were successful in bringing the article closer to good article criteria! Despite the small grammatical errors and at times confusing sentence structure, it is well-written, verifiable by the use of references, and broad so that it is accessible to a wide range of people seeking information on the topic. Well done, group :)

Jc13ex (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the feedback!! Jc13ex We will defiantly take the feedback you gave into consideration and change the points you made to improve our article even further, so that it can become the most effective article possible! :) Vs12vf (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Good work here, guys! My only concern came when I looked at the Limitations section. That section refers to the disadvantages of bedside charting, but I think the sources are really talking about the problems with bedside shift report/handoff. Charting at the bedside might wake the patient up, but it wouldn't cause too many privacy issues. Bedside report, on the other hand, is a pretty contentious topic for many nurses. Good work on this! EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 13:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Eric Enfermero! Thank you for giving us feedback , we appreciate your help. I understand what you're saying and have made changes accordingly. Please feel free to give more suggestions. Ns14cj (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys! Congratulations! I think your edits to the SBAR article have been really well done, especially seeing that you added so much new information. Your group adhered to the six Good Article Criteria (Well-written, Verifiable, Broad, Neutral, Stable and Illustrated) quite well. I think, as with all articles, there are always areas for improvement. Below I have provided you with feedback that I hope you will take in a positive manner. I hope you further make use of it in order to finalize your edits of the article. I know that what I have said is a lot and it may seem intimidating, however I truly am only trying to help you construct the best article you can!! Adriana As13sx (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think your introduction is quite brief, simple and to the point. It gives me a general outline about what SBAR is, which I think is perfect for readers. Two things that I would suggest is being a tad clearer about what exactly SBAR is. What I retained from it was that SBAR is a communication technique used to assess a client’s situation and to make recommendations based on that assessment. These assessments and recommendations are then further communicated between the healthcare professionals. Am I right? If so, it took me more time than I thought was necessary to understand this. I think that just a tad more clarity would be great…really emphasize the assessment of the client. Additionally, how are healthcare costs and home healthcare factors relative to SBAR? I found that these ideas seemed a little out of place. AdrianaAs13sx (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that your History section was very well done. I can really understand why SBAR is such a highly structured technique-it originated from the military (which of course has always been regarded as a structured system)! I also like how you added in a picture to provide a visual cue for what you said. Adriana As13sx (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In terms of your Elements of SBAR section, specifically in Background, I don’t see how identifying and providing the diagnosis is relevant to this section…I would consider it more as a part of the Assessment section. You actually mention in the Assessment section whether the determination of a diagnosis at the time is acceptable or not. In order to avoid redundancy and confusion, I would just take out the sentence regarding diagnosis from the Background section altogether. I think it is unique that you added a Note section for each element of SBAR. I think this section is very specific in terms of what each element entails, which further would benefit the reader in terms of understanding the concept at hand. Adriana As13sx (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think your addition of an example was an excellent idea! It helped me to gain a better understanding of how SBAR actually works in a real life situation. Great job! Adriana As13sx (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I think what you are trying to say in the Effects of SBAR use is very good. You have great information, however I find that your wording is somewhat unclear, especially in the third paragraph. Your first sentence in that third paragraph is extremely long. I suggest splitting it in two, just like Jc13ex had said? For example, you can say: "SBAR use has not only improved the relationship between the doctors and the nurses but in turn, also had a dramatic increase in the overall health of patients." "Due to effective communication and the use of SBAR between health care professionals, decreases in patient hospitalization and mortality rate were evident." What do you guys think? Also, be sure to add in a citation afterwards. Adriana As13sx (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I really like how you guys incorporated limitations into your article. I agree, there are always setbacks present and I think it was great that you decided to list them. In terms of referencing, I think you guys generally did a really good job. The only thing that I would suggest is applying citations to your Notes section under each of the Elements of SBAR. Remember, verifiability is key! I think that it would also be a good idea to add in one additional picture? I would suggest adding it to the Effects of SBAR use. It would flow nicely with your article. Adriana As13sx (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I also noticed some grammar mistakes and unclear sentence structure throughout, as Jc13ex had mentioned before. In the first sentence of the History section, I would input a comma after military and then end the sentence at industry. I would then begin another sentence like, "It was then used in the aviation industry, which adopted…" Under Situation in the Elements of SBAR section, your first sentence is worded a little awkwardly. I would say this instead: “This is where one determines what is going on and why health care professionals are needed?” You’ve also forgotten a colon after the sub-heading Note within the Situation section. Under the Recommendation section in your second sentence, you mention the word correct twice (just a very minor error that can be fixed-also noted by Jc13ex). Essentially, I also think it would be a good idea to read over your article and check for any additional grammatical errors. I also suggest re-structuring a few more of your sentences to allow for more clarity. If you would like me to provide you with more suggestions pertaining to grammar and sentence structure, just let me know and I’d be more than happy to. If you have any other additional questions or would like me to read over your article before next Wednesday, do not hesitate to ask me. I’d love to help you guys out! Again, phenomenal job on the article! I wish you lots of luck with finalizing your edits! Adriana As13sx (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

First off, I wanted to congratulate all of you on the completion of the edits to your article! Overall, I think you all did a terrific job, especially considering that you had to basically start from scratch. There are very few things that I would suggest changing. I think that as this article continues to grow, editors need to elaborate a little bit more for each of the passages. What you have already, is great starting information and editors can continue to add on facts that can help the reader to better understand. Under the heading Elements of SBAR I think that you should add just a couple of introductory statements telling the reader what you are describing in the next subheadings before jumping right into it. I thought that your additions followed the good article criteria. It was well-written, broad, stable, and verifiable. I noticed that there is only one image though. I'm not entirely sure of what kinds of pictures can be found that will relate to using SBAR, however I think that if possible, adding a few more will help. Lastly, I thought it was neutral. You added both disadvantages as well as advantages so readers can see both sides of using this technique. Again, well done! Vw13mp (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I think you guys did an awesome job! I think that the article is organized using headings really well. I noticed that there are some grammatical and sentence structure errors that if corrected could enhance the quality of the article. A few examples and suggestions: -“identify the person to whom you are speaking” change to identify the person WITH whom you are speaking in the note section after background, you may want to use the word provide instead of “give” -“List if any vital signs that are outside of parameters” change to ‘list if any vital signs are outside of normal parameters’ in the sentence “One must give very precise and descriptive explanations on exactly what you need during that time frame” I am confused whether it is talking about what the patient needs or what resources the health professional needs in order to help the patient -there isn’t a reference used for the note part under situation and instead of saying “what is going on with the patient”  use more formal language  this sentence is a a little confusing “if it is appropriate, provide a temporary diagnosis, and if it is not, shows signs of empathy and concern.” -“Severity of patient, additional concern”, this phrase may lead to some confusion explain what the severity of patient means -talking about how SBAR would work among physicians if they were open minded seems slightly biased  Ak14au (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys! :) I have started to make some edits from all the feedback that we have received! Here is a list of edits I have already completed: Vs12vf (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have completed all of the feedback [[User:Jc13ex|Jc13ex] gave us. Vs12vf (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have completed As13sx comment about how one of the sentences in the third paragraph of Effects of SBAR use was too long. I changed the structure around and split it into 2 sentences. Vs12vf (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks much better and easier to read. It flows very nicely. Excellent job!! Adriana As13sx (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have completed Jc13ex feedback on grammar mistakes and unclear sentence structure. i changed the first sentence of the History section, where they had suggested to input a commaI would input a comma after military, and then split the sentence into 2 sentences. Vs12vf (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have completed Jc13ex feedback Under Situation in the Elements of SBAR section, I changed the first sentence, where they had said the sentence was worded a little awkwardly.Vs12vf (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have completed all of the feedback provided by Ak14au except for the fact that there STILL needs to be a reference used for the note part under situation and instead of saying “what is going on with the patient” use more formal language - BUT i believe this part is now taken out, because I don't see it anymore? So therefore I think this part is fine? Let me know! Vs12vf (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have also added a citation that was missing in the history section! :) Vs12vf (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There is still a few more things that needs to be edited based on the feedback we have received! If there is anything else you guys find, feel free to edit them and change things so that we can create the best possible article in the end!! :) Let me know what you guys are editing when doing so! Vs12vf (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Vs12vf (and As13sx, Jc13ex and Ak14au). This is starting to look quite good. As you can see, I have tagged some parts of the article with {{citation needed}}. This applies particularly to the "bullet point" lists of particular instructions. These bits still need some attention because currently they read like a manual and not an encyclopedia entry, and it would be great if they could be sourced. If no source can be found then it's technically original research and it would not be suitable for inclusion.

You will notice that I have added links to the national guidance in the UK that recommends the use of SBAR. Are there similar guidelines in the USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand? It would be great to include them as they are valuable sources. JFW | T@lk 07:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Vs12vf, can I ask that you rephrase some of the practical aspects of SBAR use? We really need to get rid of the "how to" aspects, and definitely not address the reader in second person. JFW | T@lk 19:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings,JFW. First, thank you for your feedback it is very much appreciated. Second, I think I understand what you're saying especially when it comes to the problem of addressing the reader in second person and have made some changes that hopefully fix the problem. Feel free to give more suggestions about how we can improve our article and we will try our best to see what we can do. Rs13cs (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey! So, I worked on some of the feedback you guys gave us as well :) Thank you again for taking the time to read our article over! I added citations in the "elements of SBAR" section where they were needed, and I tried as best i could to reword all the "one should" sections of this part of the article!Vr13zk (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Brock University: feedback

First of all, hi Vs12vf and welcome to Wikipedia!

This can be a confusing place (trust me, I'm relatively inexperienced myself and there is a bewildering variety of guidelines to absorb and follow!) I've covered some broad areas below that I think are worth considering with regard to your project work.

Format

Section headings should mostly be lower-case with an initial capital, unless they contain proper nouns/names. For example, Example of SBAR communication in a clinical setting rather than Example of SBAR Communication in a Clinical Setting. The relevant guideline is WP:SECTIONCAPS. Sometimes it looks a bit odd when you're used to reading book and article titles that use a different convention. The main idea is consistency and ease of reading.

Don't be afraid to wikilink key words to other Wikipedia articles (but you'll usually only need to link the first occurrence of the term). Just off the top of my head I'd suggest quantitative, qualitative, nurses, physicians, and I'm sure many others.

Sources

When contributing to articles about healthcare, medicine, nursing etc it's especially important to consider the sources you use. Recent, reliable sources are almost always preferred (unless older sources are of historical interest). Some guidelines exist to help you choose which references make the grade and which do not; one such is WP:MEDRS.

I strongly encourage you to make use of the {{cite}} templates. These are excellent tools for keeping track of all your sources, and they help other editors by standardising format and making originals easier to track down. For example,

<ref name="DUNSFORD">Dunsford, J. (2009). Structured Communication: Improving Patient Safety With SBAR. Nursing for Women's Health, 13(5), 384-390. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-486X.2009.01456.x/full </ref>

becomes:

<ref name=DUNSFORD2009>{{cite journal|last1=Dunsford|first1=J.|title=Structured Communication: Improving Patient Safety with SBAR|journal=Nursing for Women's Health|date=2009|volume=13|issue=5|pages=384–390|doi=10.1111/j.1751-486X.2009.01456.x}}</ref>

Here's how they both end up looking:

References

Notice that in the first reference, there's a link to full text. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall so I can't get to it! In the second, I've filled in the DOI field in the cite template so it automatically gets linked in the reference list. Sadly this really doesn't help much if you don't already subscribe to Science Direct, but many viewers of this article will at least have that through their institution or school.

Tone and neutral point of view

Sometimes it's hard to distance yourself from the content you're adding. When you believe in something, it's hard not to recommend it personally! However, one of the things that Wikipedia is not: it's not an instruction manual. The idea is to try to describe your topic without promoting it. It's important not to be offering health advice. So, be cautious of using phrases like "one should" and "make sure to".

Don't be daunted

You guys, be encouraged by your first experience here. You did a lot of things right. Most importantly, you engaged the community to help you improve the article. There's a saying among employers: "Hire for fit, train for skill." In other words, attitude, patience, and the ability to cooperate and take feedback are far more important than whether or not your first edits were a work of art!

I'll leave this page on my watchlist, so feel free to ask for help if you need it. Cheers, Basie (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Salutations, friend! First of all, I'm speaking in behalf of our whole group to express our sincere gratitude for taking the time to not only read through our article but also offer valuable insight on how to become better Wikipedia editors. I am particularly grateful for your help in fixing our citations. Another thing that was surprising to me was how hard it actually it is to remain neutral. I thought that all we had to do was avoid stating our own opinions to be neutral but now I know otherwise. I would bear that in mind and try to make appropriate changes. As you can see, we are fairly new to the editing world here in Wikipedia and are still in the process of learning the basics so feel free to add any more suggestions, voice any concerns, and impart any knowledge that you think would help us become better editors in the near future.

Rs13cs (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. ^{Have a good day!!}

(Am I doing thing right? I'm still new to this.)

History section

So, if you're from Brock University you may be noticing some people taking big bites out of this article, adding citations and fussing around with format. Don't worry, that's what almost always happens! It's all part of the process. For my part, I've found a couple of handy-looking reviews that should shore things up from a WP:MEDRS point of view, though there's a ways to go yet.

I've been looking at the history section to begin with, and trying to sort out what we can and can't claim with the sources we have. In particular, this is quite a sweeping claim:

it continued to demonstrate participation and teamwork between health care professionals and strengthen relationships with patients and their families.<ref name="NARAYAN">{{cite journal|last1=Narayan|first1=MC|title=Using SBAR communications in efforts to prevent patient rehospitalizations.|journal=Home healthcare nurse|date=October 2013|volume=31|issue=9|pages=504-15; quiz 515-7|pmid=24081133|doi=10.1097/NHH.0b013e3182a87711}}</ref>

I'm just going to explain why I've removed it for the time being, and if I've misunderstood anything more experienced editors than I will no doubt chime in.

The trick is, there's a big difference in health (as I'm sure you know) between what we think is probably a good idea, and what we can demonstrate works from the quality of evidence we have available. SBAR doesn't really "demonstrate" anything, it's a tool: we can use it to reduce error and improve understanding. I guess at a pinch it could strengthen relationships with families, but it'd be a really tough one to prove!

In addition, when you look at Narayan, it's an instructional article: it teaches one to use SBAR and explains why it might be a good idea, but it doesn't really go beyond that. So we should be very careful not to use it to claim too much. As an experienced RN in a complex work environment, I'm personally quite sure that SBAR when done right can improve patient safety. I can use that experience to teach newer staff. However, I can't draw on that experience to publish in a medical article on Wikipedia, because that's original research.

Anyway, don't feel like you can't continue to edit here... just keep an eye on what the experienced folks like Jfdwolff and Drchriswilliams are contributing in the article SBAR, and get a sense for what they think might be necessary. (That's all I do, copy people who look like they know what they're doing!) Cheers, Basie (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to verify our sources and removing unverified statements. We will try to avoid sources that could be classified as original research next time. We have also received feedback from Jfdwolff and we are now slowly but surely getting the general idea of what to do and not to do when editing. You're a 100% right though, they do look like know what they're doing! Rs13cs (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at our article! We appreciate that you looked through our article and pointed out to our mistake. Like Jack has said, we will try to avoid sources that couldn't be classified as original research. We will definitely remember this in the long run. Ns14cj (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to look at our article! We appreciate the feedback and comments you gave us! Like Jack and Nisha said, we will defiantly try our hardest to avoid possible sources that could be considered original research when editing in the future. Will the help of everyone's feedback, I think we are now getting the hang out what to do when editing, and how to edit a Wikipedia page like ours properly. Thanks again! Vs12vf (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Vs12vf Can I commend you on the hard work and the useful article? I am glad we now have a good article on SBAR and I would be happy to direct professional colleagues to it for reference.

Please stick around on Wikipedia and improve other articles within your area of interest! You can always drop me a note if you need a hand. JFW | T@lk 22:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

JFW Thank you so much for your kind words and encouragement! I am so pleased to hear that you would be willing to share our article on SBAR with professional colleagues for a :::reference! It was a honour to have the opportunity to present this article in the most effective way possible! I will definatly stay in contact, if I ever have any questions! Thank you again! :) Vs12vf (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Origins of concept

Almost all sources mention something about Michael Leonard introducing SBAR in healthcare at Kaiser, but I cannot seem to find any direct proof that it originated in U.S. Navy nuclear submarine comms. A decent secondary source would be great. JFW | T@lk 23:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Citations and History

This is a very thorough article regarding SBAR and why it is useful. Just a few minor additions to address, the history section is pretty sparse and is lacking citations, making the little information provided less than credible. Perhaps some information of what SBAR was used for in the military (ie what type of information needed to be shared using this format)? Williann1 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)