Talk:Ascension (healthcare system)

Infobox request

Hi editors, I'm KC and I work for Ascension. I was hoping to make some updates to the article so that the numbers are more accurate. I noticed that the infobox is a little out of date. Our latest hospital and employee numbers are 142 hospitals and 142,000 employees, per this Fierce Healthcare article. I won't make any edits myself because of my conflict of interest. I'd really appreciate the help! Also, if you are interested, I created a draft of what a fully updated Ascension article might look like. You can find that here. Thanks in advance for your help! KC at Ascension (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Hi, thanks for using the edit request system and following Wikipedia's COI guidelines! I have implemented the numbers fix. The draft would have to be a separate conversation; at first glance, one thing that raises a flag for me is the minimized content about the Project Nightingale controversy and several lawsuits. It's not necessarily the case that those should be narrated in extensive detail (relevant information that may be of use: WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:PROPORTION, WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE) but you will need to justify specifically why that coverage is decreased in your draft body of the article. Remember that Wikipedia's aim is to collect reliable coverage about a subject, which is subtly distinct from cataloging the capital-t Truth. To use an overly simplified analogy, if, say, 30% of reliable source coverage about X is about a lawsuit (even if that lawsuit is ultimately spurious), that's roughly how much attention Wikipedia ought to give to the lawsuit, while remaining careful to avoid taking sides (something that may well need to be corrected in the current form of the article). WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the quick response and the feedback, WhinyTheYounger! I will definitely take a look at those policies and add my reasoning for wanting to reduce the content related to Project Nightingale and the lawsuits in a separate request. Thanks again! KC at Ascension (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Company overview section

Hi editors, KC here again with another request. I've seen a lot of company articles that have a version of a Company overview section that provides some of the basic operating details, like the revenue, locations, and leadership in one spot. I was wondering if we could try something like that in the Ascension article. I wrote something that may work and would love some feedback on it.

Company overview

Ascension is the largest nonprofit and Catholic health system in the United States. It operates more than 2,600 health care sites in 19 states and Washington, D.C., including 142 hospitals and 40 senior living facilities. It employs more than 142,000 people as of 2021. Ascension had an operating revenue of $27.2 billion at the end of fiscal year 2021. The company is led by president and CEO Joseph R. Impicciche and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.

In addition to health and senior care facilities, Ascension also operates a for-profit venture capital subsidiary called Ascension Ventures, which invests in medical startups.

References

I think this new section helps improve the organization and keeps similar information together, while also creating a more complete and accurate picture of the full range of things that Ascension does. I have seen these sections as the first in the main body of the article, so maybe it could go there? As before, I won't make any edits myself because of my conflict of interest.

WhinyTheYounger, would you be willing to take a look at this request as well? I'd really appreciate it! KC at Ascension (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Done, but with one modification — I changed "Ascension is the largest nonprofit and Catholic health system in the United States." That fact is briefly stated in the Business Journal, but what it means is a bit unclear to me. Is that for 2021? Is it the largest nonprofit system, largest Catholic system, or the largest nonprofit, Catholic system? Largest by number of facilities/coverage, correct?

Apologies for the delayed response, thanks for using my Talk page. I will very likely be occupied for the next week in the real world and unable to edit, but I'll keep this on my list. Regarding the first sentence, if you can clarify the question above with a more specific source, you are free to go ahead and make the limited edit yourself if it looks like I'm still inactive (you can just note in the edit summary that it's a COI edit made line with consensus and a go-ahead on the talk page). WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 18:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries about the delay! Thank you so much for the help, WhinyTheYounger! To answer your question, I believe the mention in the St. Louis Business Journal is referencing this ranking by Becker's Hospital Review, which says Ascension is the second-largest health system in the country by number of hospitals as of 2020, and is the first Catholic system and the first nonprofit system on the list, which would make it both the largest nonprofit and the largest Catholic system in the U.S. However, I'm not sure how editors feel about Becker's, so I'll refrain from making that edit for now. Thanks again for the help and I hope we can continue working together when you have time! KC at Ascension (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Project Nightingale request

Hi editors, KC here again with another request. I've been doing some reading on the policies WhinyTheYounger included in a prior comment (thank you so much!) and I thought I would try to address the concerns about Project Nightingale in this post. I definitely don't want to do anything against the rules, so I'll try to justify why my draft changed the content related to Project Nightingale so much using the policies.

• One major reason for cutting down the content related to Project Nightingale in my draft is that the project has its own Wikipedia article. I think my summary of Project Nightingale is a fair summary of the information on the project given there is a separate article, per the content forking guidelines, though I would welcome additional feedback!
• Another reason for cutting this down is the removal of language that does not seem to be neutral. In the opening sentence of the paragraph on Project Nightingale, it says "In 2018, controversy swirled..." This does not seem neutral in tone to me and there are a few instances of that in that subsection.
• Some additional content removed was the sentence about inquiries from U.S. Senators. MobiHealthNews does not seem like a reliable source, and I think "inquiry" is also a little less than neutral, as it sounds like these Senators did a lot more than what actually happened, which was sending a letter to Google asking the company to explain how it will use the medical data from the project. This Guardian article explains it, and could be used to replace the MobiHealthNews source if we wanted to keep that sentence.
• I think phrasing about how the partnership would work is inappropriate. The current article makes working with Google to improve care sound nefarious with such phrases "unspecified "tools" that would enable "doctors and nurses to improve care"" in the second paragraph. It wasn't a matter of not specifying the tools out of malintent, as seems to be implied, so much as it was the tools were still being developed, as is mentioned in the CNBC source. I think this middle paragraph constitutes undue weight to these ideas, but I am open to other interpretations!
  • In particular, I think this phrase from the section on undue weight applies (emphasis mine): Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.
  • I would argue the current placement and phrasing constitutes undue weight by the juxtaposition of statements, because of the implications listed earlier
• Some other trimming has been done because there are some instances (such as near the mention of HIPAA) that offer additional unnecessary explanation because there is already a wikilink in place.
• Further, some trimming has been suggested on the parentheticals and the em-dashed content, as I believe that constitutes undue weight based on depth of detail, and those details should be in the main Project Nightingale article
• Finally, with regard to trimming and paraphrasing the final paragraph, that content isn't supported by the sourcing. The New York Times source does not mention privacy advocates or risk to patient privacy, though it does dance around the issue. The same is true of the Wired and CNBC sources. It's my understanding that the source must directly support the information in an article and I'm not sure these sources do. I'm also not sure HealthITSecurity counts as a reliable source, particularly for potentially controversial information. I am happy to revisit this however, if anyone has a different interpretation!

Well, that was a lot. WhinyTheYounger and others, please let me know what you think of this reasoning, and thanks in advance for working through it with me! I will address the lawsuits in a separate request. My proposed text for Project Nightingale is below:

The Wall Street Journal reported on a collaboration between Ascension and Google in 2019 to share health information about its patients with the technology company. Known as Project Nightingale, the groups said the purpose of the collaboration was to make it easier for physicians to access and search their patient records. The partnership drew some criticism over privacy concerns and the potential for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services opened an investigation into the project in 2020.

References

Thanks in advance for the assistance! KC at Ascension (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Hi! I'll implement the above, replacing the current section text. Some notes:

• I think you're right that the current section about Nightingale does not meet Wikipedia quality/content standards, including due to the issues you highlight with regard to undue weight, neutrality etc. To that end, your current proposal seems to be an improvement on the balance, though I or others may make modifications in the future, which you are free to contest or otherwise request to modify, of course.
• On more arcane Wiki-lawyering, note that the existence of an independent article does not preclude coverage of the subject in this one; content forking guidelines are not directly relevant here except for the fact that they include reference to the need for a summary section. The question here is how extensive the summary should be, which is where e.g. WP:UNDUE comes in. To your credit, I do think there is overemphasis on the controversy currently and some pare down is likely warranted, after having read each of the sources.
• I will note that I'm not sure I agree with your reading of the sources in the final paragraph (Wired, NYT specifically). That paragraph is non-neutral as it stands (e.g. "massive" risk to patient privacy) but the articles do indeed highlight the risks. Wired ends with "Legal? Yep. Creepy? Yeah, kind of." after having quoted a bioethicist and health law attorney on quirks of the Project. I will probably re-insert the Wired article as a reference for the sake of comprehensiveness to the above. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

FYI I just added information this article to the end to help explain some of the benefits of the Project as well as ethical concerns. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

WhinyTheYounger, wow! Thank you so much for your diligence on this request. I really appreciate you working with me on it, and I think the article/text you added from The Conversation does a really nice job of providing a balanced look at the project. Thanks again! KC at Ascension (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Lawsuits request

Hello editors, KC here again with another request. I wanted to wrap up addressing some of the things WhinyTheYounger brought up regarding the draft I created, namely the removal of two lawsuits and modification of another.

• First, regarding the text about the ERISA lawsuit, I am proposing we modify it mostly to streamline the text. My version cuts out some unnecessary wording covered by the wikilinks to other articles and replaces the Becker's source with a higher-quality one. My proposed text is as follows:
  • In July 2017, a class-action lawsuit was brought against Ascension in federal court, alleging that an Ascension subsidiary had violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a law governing employee pensions. The suit was settled later that year for $29.5 million.

• Second, regarding the suit with Dr. Denman, I suggested removing the suit because I do not believe the current sources are of suitable reliability for potentially controversial content and could not locate other articles that mentioned the suit in reliable sources; however, I am open to other interpretations!

• Finally, regarding the D.C. suit, the lawsuit was dismissed by the DC Attorney General, who originally filed the suit. The cited Washington Post article says "the attorney general indicated in court documents that the city was satisfied with plans submitted by hospital officials for shutting down most services and in a March 1 filing voluntarily dismissed the case." I think the mention of the suit is unnecessary per WP:NOTEVERYTHING
• That said, if editors prefer to keep mention of the D.C. suit, can we tweak the language to be more balanced and neutral and reflect why the decision to dismiss the suit was made (not that the suit failed, which is inaccurate), based on the above quote from WaPo?

Another long post! I hope that helps editors understand my reasoning for suggesting the removal or modification of those suits, and I'm happy to discuss further! WhinyTheYounger, would you be willing to take a look at this reasoning as well? I'd really appreciate it! KC at Ascension (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this this week! WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 16:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you so much for taking a look! KC at Ascension (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

References