Talk:International Classification of Primary Care

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


The information on the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) Wikipedia page is correct, however in some areas, limited. The article needs to be expanded to address a wider audience that may not have the same knowledge base as a health care professional. In the first paragraph, the World Health Organization (WHO) is not given its abbreviation however the abbreviation is assumed and used in the very next sentence. It would be advisable to discuss how the ICPC is used in different countries worldwide (a portion of the external links literature states that it is), as the information in the text box on the right hand pane declares that its country is the United Kingdom. We are unable to determine if the ICPC originated in the United Kingdom or if it is only used in the United Kingdom. The structure section of the article could be expanded by providing further information about the 17 ICPC chapters relating to diagnosis classification. Further information could be utilised from the external links to expand the article. This suggestion forms a part of an educational assignment for Health Informatics at La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia. Leah L Marino (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

This article displays good use of internal and external links. Spelling and Grammer is good. The information is very informative and objective. The use of sub-sections and sub section headings is also good. The content may need to be expanded a bit e.g. some sections hold no content as yet. More references would also be good if applicable. TessVague (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of ICPC(IHC)[edit]

Review for Health Informatics

The article addresses what the ICPC is and it's classification method scheme. The references provide a through detailed knowledge of what ICPC and are although there are not many references they are detailed.


Some sections of the page could deal with a more detailed content. The article could utilize more hyperlinks to add aditional information and additional information on ICPC's history would also provide beneficial relevance to the article.

Caillin Austin (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)