Jump to content

Talk:Cleveland Clinic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikiuser5991 (talk | contribs) at 23:11, 19 August 2018 (→‎Safety and other issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Finances

Hello, Since editors suggested I consider improvements to sections other than Reputation, I come here asking editors watching this page to consider updating Finances. This section is one sentence long, and the information therewithin is six years old. It seems like an appropriate time for that to be updated. These stories from The Plain Dealer and Crain's Cleveland Business highlighted Cleveland Clinic's 2016 financial performance. Can these sources be used to replace the existing sentence with the following?

Finances
Finances

Cleveland Clinic posted $243 million operating income on $8 billion revenue in 2016.[1][2] Operating income fell about 50 percent from 2015, which the hospital said was due to shrinking reimbursements and rising drug costs.[1][2]

Markup

Cleveland Clinic posted $243 million operating income on $8 billion revenue in 2016.<ref name="Coutre17">{{cite news |title=2016 was a tough year for Cleveland Clinic finances |last1=Coutre |first1=Lydia |url=http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20170215/NEWS/170219875/2016-was-a-tough-year-for-cleveland-clinic-finances |newspaper=[[Crain Communications|Crain's Cleveland Business]] |date=15 February 2017 |accessdate=25 August 2017}}</ref><ref name="Zeltner17">{{cite news |title=Cleveland Clinic CEO Toby Cosgrove reports rough financial year for hospital in 2016 |last1=Zeltner |first1=Brie |url=http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2017/02/cleveland_clinic_ceo_toby_cosg_3.html |newspaper=[[The Plain Dealer]] |date=15 February 2017 |accessdate=25 August 2017}}</ref> Operating income fell about 50 percent from 2015, which the hospital said was due to shrinking reimbursements and rising drug costs.<ref name="Coutre17"/><ref name="Zeltner17"/>

I am executive director of corporate communications at Cleveland Clinic, and I have disclosed and discussed my conflict of interest above. I understand previous COI editing by others at Cleveland Clinic has caused problems among the Wikipedia community. I'm committed to working with the community and following your process. Thank you. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Coutre, Lydia (15 February 2017). "2016 was a tough year for Cleveland Clinic finances". Crain's Cleveland Business. Retrieved 25 August 2017.
  2. ^ a b Zeltner, Brie (15 February 2017). "Cleveland Clinic CEO Toby Cosgrove reports rough financial year for hospital in 2016". The Plain Dealer. Retrieved 25 August 2017.
It would be great to have encyclopedic content instead of a datapoint. Can you please provide more... breadth and context? While we are doing finances it would be great to deal with executive salaries. thx Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jytdog, thanks for your feedback. I am finding it a challenge to offer helpful updates to contribute to this article. Since it was requested that I suggest "specific, incremental edits of the form 'please change X to Y' rather than large blocks of text to be replaced wholesale", I was aiming for just that by asking editors to update the information in the Finances section. Do I understand correctly that editors want to see more detail?
If that's the case, to help prevent more requests that don't meet with what editors are looking for, how about I post a list of things I can work on based on what I see in good quality articles about other major hospitals and health care systems? If I benchmark against those pages, does that sound like a good way to look at what I might be able to contribute here?
Finally, to your question: details of Cleveland Clinic executive salaries are publicly available, but is it standard practice to include that in hospital Wikipedia articles?
Thank you. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Most articles in Wikipedia about hospitals are terrible and are obviously the product of undisclosed paid editing by their subject's PR people. So no, they are not good models. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jytdog, I reviewed some more hospital articles (mainly other hospitals appearing near the top of the Best Hospitals list by U.S. News & World Report), and I see what you mean when you say they are not good models. It would help to know what a high-quality article about a hospital might look like, so I can help with resources to get this article to that point. Are there specific things that editors watching this page would like to include that I might help with? I'm working on images but can surely assist with other details too.
Thank you. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cleveland Clinic. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New photos request

Hello, Wikipedians. I've recently uploaded two new photos to Wikimedia Commons that can be used in this article. The first is a new image of the Taussig Cancer Center to replace the existing photo: File:Taussig Cancer Center.png. The second is an image of the Lerner Research Institute: File:Lerner Research Institute.png. It might work best alongside the related content in the Research and education section.

As Cleveland Clinic’s representative on Wikipedia, I have a financial conflict of interest and will not make changes to the article myself. Is there anyone who could add these photos to this article? I'm happy to answer any questions on this. Thanks, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kendall-K1. Thank you for adding the Lerner Research Institute photo to this article. In case you overlooked this message, there is also a new photo of the Taussig Cancer Center that can be added if you'd like: File:Taussig Cancer Center.png. I'm happy to answer any questions on this. Thanks, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
ClevelandClinicES Hello, following your request here and cross posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals I replaced the older, smaller image with the new higher resolution one you shared. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Blue Rasberry, Thank you for adding the new Taussig Cancer Center photo to this article. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History

Hello, I have prepared citations for some unsourced detail in History, as per WP:VERIFY, in addition to a couple of other fixes. Can editors review the following and add my suggested edits to the live article?

I’ve added a citation for the fire death toll. I used a different source than you suggested. Billhpike (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
History
Beginnings

"The practice was purchased by his two assistants, Frank E. Bunts and George Washington Crile".

  • References:
    • Smith, Dale C. (1986). "Modern surgery and the development of group practice in the midwest". Caduceus: A Museum Quarterly for the Health Sciences. Department of Medical Humanities. II (3): 27. Retrieved 14 November 2017.[1]
    • John D. Clough, M.D., ed. (2004). To Act as a Unit: The Story of the Cleveland Clinic (PDF). Cleveland, Ohio: The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. p. 21. ISBN 9781596240001. Retrieved 14 November 2017.[2]

While I know Wikipedia does not prefer primary sources, I figured I would share the book To Act as a Unit in case editors felt it could be appropriate in giving historical context.

Cleveland Clinic fire

The entire middle of the first paragraph contains no inline citations. I assume that's because the detail is likely found in the source referenced at the end of the paragraph. However, I feel the article should at least carry a citation on the sentence where it says 123 people died in the fire.

  • Reference:
    • John Stark Bellamy, II (2009). Cleveland's Greatest Disasters!: 16 Tragic True Tales of Death and Destruction. Gray & Company. pp. 87–104. ISBN 9781598510584. Retrieved 14 November 2017.[3]
Growth of specialization

There is a typo in the second sentence. The name is Martha Holden Jennings, not Martha Holding Jennings.

Also, the unsourced sentence on William S. Kiser contains a factual inaccuracy. Kiser was chairman of the board from 1977–1989.

  • Reference:
    • John A. Kastor (2005). Specialty Care in the Era of Managed Care: Cleveland Clinic Versus University Hospitals of Cleveland. JHU Press. p. 236. ISBN 9780801881749. Retrieved 14 November 2017.[4]

As Cleveland Clinic’s representative on Wikipedia, I have a financial conflict of interest and will not make changes to the article myself. Is there anyone who could make these edits? I'm happy to answer any questions on this. Thanks, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Implemented The references have been added and the 2 typos have been corrected. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  07:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Spintendo. Thank you for adding the sources and fixing typos. I'm curious why you deleted the External links section. I looked at the Wikipedia pages for the other hospitals listed in U.S. News & World Report's Best Hospitals list and each of those pages includes External links (Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital and University of California, San Francisco Medical Center). ClevelandClinicES (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Smith, Dale C. (1986). "Modern surgery and the development of group practice in the midwest". Caduceus: A Museum Quarterly for the Health Sciences. II (3). Department of Medical Humanities: 27. Retrieved 14 November 2017.
  2. ^ John D. Clough, M.D., ed. (2004). To Act as a Unit: The Story of the Cleveland Clinic (PDF). Cleveland, Ohio: The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. p. 21. ISBN 9781596240001. Retrieved 14 November 2017.
  3. ^ John Stark Bellamy, II (2009). Cleveland's Greatest Disasters!: 16 Tragic True Tales of Death and Destruction. Gray & Company. pp. 87–104. ISBN 9781598510584. Retrieved 14 November 2017.
  4. ^ John A. Kastor (2005). Specialty Care in the Era of Managed Care: Cleveland Clinic Versus University Hospitals of Cleveland. JHU Press. p. 236. ISBN 9780801881749. Retrieved 14 November 2017.

Outdated "Finances"

Hello, I would like to revisit a discussion I started in August. Do editors have any ideas on how to better update the Finances section of this article? As I mentioned above, this section is one sentence long, and the information there within is six years old. I previously put forward a proposal to update with the most-recent details, but my request was declined. The reviewer said the section should be developed to show more "breadth and context". What sort of information should be included? I'd be happy to look into details to add, but I'm wary of putting together a lot of information if it might not be appropriate.

Conversely, if the existing Finances is not detailed enough and simply updating to the current figures is not appropriate (per my previous request), would it be better to simply remove from the article altogether? Right now, all that section conveys is six-year-old financial information, which is surely not of any benefit to readers.

If editors have changed their minds, and would be ok with updating these details while we figure out how to expand the section, here is the wording I proposed previously:

Finances
Finances

Cleveland Clinic posted $243 million operating income on $8 billion revenue in 2016.[1][2] Operating income fell about 50 percent from 2015, which the hospital said was due to shrinking reimbursements and rising drug costs.[1][2]

Markup

Cleveland Clinic posted $243 million operating income on $8 billion revenue in 2016.<ref name="Coutre17">{{cite news |title=2016 was a tough year for Cleveland Clinic finances |last1=Coutre |first1=Lydia |url=http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20170215/NEWS/170219875/2016-was-a-tough-year-for-cleveland-clinic-finances |newspaper=[[Crain Communications|Crain's Cleveland Business]] |date=15 February 2017 |accessdate=25 August 2017}}</ref><ref name="Zeltner17">{{cite news |title=Cleveland Clinic CEO Toby Cosgrove reports rough financial year for hospital in 2016 |last1=Zeltner |first1=Brie |url=http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2017/02/cleveland_clinic_ceo_toby_cosg_3.html |newspaper=[[The Plain Dealer]] |date=15 February 2017 |accessdate=25 August 2017}}</ref> Operating income fell about 50 percent from 2015, which the hospital said was due to shrinking reimbursements and rising drug costs.<ref name="Coutre17"/><ref name="Zeltner17"/>

As Cleveland Clinic’s representative on Wikipedia, I have a financial conflict of interest and will not make changes to the article myself. Is there anyone who could consider these edits? Thanks, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Coutre, Lydia (15 February 2017). "2016 was a tough year for Cleveland Clinic finances". Crain's Cleveland Business. Retrieved 25 August 2017.
  2. ^ a b Zeltner, Brie (15 February 2017). "Cleveland Clinic CEO Toby Cosgrove reports rough financial year for hospital in 2016". The Plain Dealer. Retrieved 25 August 2017.

 Implemented Spintendo ᔦᔭ 19:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spintendo. Thank you for adding the more-recent financial information. Soon after your edit, SlimVirgin reinstated the 2011 financial information. Now that Finances includes financials from 2011 and 2016, I wonder what's the best way to develop this further. Should we add financials to fill in the years between (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015)? (And, of course, the next question is: Why start with 2011? Where do we begin?) It makes sense to me to include 2016 financials in the article, as they are the most recently reported. While including the 2011 data is unclear to me, and most likely not beneficial to readers without explaining the context, I want to understand better why it is retained so I can help further with providing appropriate information. I look forward to reading what the both of you and others think about this. Thanks, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the edit because it says that, in 2011, Cleveland Clinic was the second top-grossing hospital in the United States, with total patient revenue of $9.14 billion. That seems interesting and probably not the kind of thing that should be removed at the request of the Cleveland Clinic, at least not without further explanation (e.g. that it's wrong, or not that interesting because ...). SarahSV (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SarahSV. Sounds good. Thanks for the explanation! ClevelandClinicES (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General updates

Hello, I have prepared a series of copy edits to help improve this encyclopedia article. There's nothing major here, mainly a few edits to remove redundancies or improve the writing.

Introduction

  • In the lead sentence, "located" is not necessary.
    • The Cleveland Clinic is a multispecialty academic hospital located in Cleveland, Ohio, that is owned and operated by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, an Ohio nonprofit corporation established in 1921.
  • In the second sentence, the word "also" is redundant because it follows the phrase "in addition to".
    • In addition to its flagship hospital in Cleveland, the Cleveland Clinic also operates affiliated facilities in Florida, Nevada, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates.

History: Growth of specialization

  • The third sentence says a new research building "went up in 1974". Rather than "went up", can this be changed to say "was built" or "was constructed" to maintain encyclopedic tone?
  • The final sentence of this subsection says, "Completed in 1985, the Century Project including a 14-story outpatient building (now known as the Crile Building) designed by architect Cesar Pelli." This should say "includes," not "including".

Locations

  • To make the following sentence more active, delete the word "was":
    • "A location in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates—Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi—was opened in 2015."

As Cleveland Clinic’s representative on Wikipedia, I have a financial conflict of interest and will not make changes to the article myself. Is there anyone who could consider these edits?

In recent months, we have updated Finances, added sources to History and new photos of the Taussig Cancer Center and Lerner Research Institute. I have asked editors if they had any ideas for further developing Finances, but I have not heard any specifics suggestions. Unless editors see any other areas that might require updates, I will begin putting together a new edit request to update the outdated U.S. News & World Report rankings. Thank you, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to 'General Updates' edit request 25-JAN-2018

checkY All requested changes implemented. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 18:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spintendo. Thank you for making those copy changes. I will be posting another edit request soon to address the outdated U.S. News & World Report rankings. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. News & World Report rankings table

Hello, Since we have worked together to update this article, and I have yet to hear from editors of other areas they would like to see developed, I am again requesting updates to the existing U.S. News & World Report rankings table in Reputation.

The current table on the article is factually incorrect per the current listings [1]:

  • Cancer is 7, not 8
  • ENT is 16, not 12
  • Geriatrics is 5, not 8
  • Gynecology is 5, not 3
  • Neurology and neurosurgery is 6, not 8
  • Ophthalmology is 9, not 8
  • Rheumatology is 2, not 3
  • Urology is now 1, not 2

The table I propose fixes the above and adds a column listing Cleveland Clinic's pediatric specialty rankings, as these are ranked separately than adult specialties. Can any editors consider replacing the existing table with the following?

Reputation table
Specialty National ranking[1] Pediatric specialty national ranking[1]
Cancer 7 44
Cardiology and heart surgery 1 27
Diabetes and endocrinology 3 50
Ear, nose and throat 16
Gastroenterology and GI surgery 2 28
Geriatrics 5
Gynecology 5
Neonatology 40
Nephrology 2
Neurology and neurosurgery 6 16
Ophthalmology 9
Orthopedics 3 41
Pulmonology 3 35
Rheumatology 2
Urology 1 24

References

  1. ^ a b "Cleveland Clinic". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 8 August 2017.
Markup

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Specialty !! National ranking<ref name="USNewsRankings">{{cite web |url=http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/oh/cleveland-clinic-6410670 |title=Cleveland Clinic |publisher=[[U.S. News & World Report]] |accessdate=1 August 2017}}</ref> !! Pediatric specialty national ranking<ref name="USNewsRankings"/>
|-
| Cancer || 7 || 44
|-
| Cardiology and heart surgery|| 1 || 27
|-
| Diabetes and endocrinology|| 3 || 50
|-
| Ear, nose and throat|| 16
|-
| Gastroenterology and GI surgery|| 2 || 28
|-
| Geriatrics || 5
|-
| Gynecology|| 5
|-
| Neonatology || || 40
|-
| Nephrology || 2
|-
| Neurology and neurosurgery || 6 || 16
|-
| Ophthalmology || 9
|-
| Orthopedics|| 3 || 41
|-
| Pulmonology || 3 || 35
|-
| Rheumatology || 2
|-
| Urology || 1 || 24
|}

As Cleveland Clinic’s representative on Wikipedia, I have a financial conflict of interest and will not make changes to the article myself. Is there anyone who could consider these edits? Thank you, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just remove this table. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Things that need continual updating are not well suited to Wikipedia. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kendall-K1, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris and others. Thanks for the input so far. If it helps inform any decisions, I looked at the Wikipedia articles for the nine other hospitals in U.S. News & World Report's Top 10. Of those, six of the articles either listed the hospitals' specialty rankings or contained a table: Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins Hospital, UCSF Medical Center, Michigan Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, and Stanford Health Care. Three did not: Massachusetts General Hospital, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, and Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.
How should this be approached to be consistent across articles? If a table is not the right way to go, would a listing of specialties that are ranked in the top ten be reasonable? For example: Cleveland Clinic is ranked in the top ten for the following specialties: cancer; cardiology and heart surgery; diabetes and endocrinology; gastroenterology and GI surgery; geriatrics; gynecology; nephrology; neurology and neurosurgery; ophthalmology; orthopedics; pulmonology; rheumatology; and urology. That would tend to require less updating over time, since hospitals don't tend to have dramatic rankings changes from year-to-year, and if they did, surely it would be noteworthy to mention. Thank you. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be looking to other hospital articles for guidance. As Jytdog said, "Most articles in Wikipedia about hospitals are terrible and are obviously the product of undisclosed paid editing by their subject's PR people. So no, they are not good models." I think it would be reasonable to try to find a summary of the rankings that we can cite from RS, rather than try to summarize them ourselves. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kendall-K1. Based on your last reply, I drafted a paragraph that summarizes coverage in reliable sources The Plain Dealer, Fortune, and Akron Beacon Journal. Does this work?
U.S. News & World Report

U.S. News & World Report ranked Cleveland Clinic No. 2 on its list of Best Hospitals 2017-2018 and No. 1 for cardiology and heart surgery.[1][2] Ten of the hospital's specialties ranked in the top five across the country: cardiology and heart surgery, diabetes and endocrinology, gastroenterology and GI surgery, geriatrics, gynecology, nephrology, orthopedics, pulmonology; rheumatology; and urology.[1][3] Nine pediatric specialties were ranked in the top 50.[4]

Markup

''[[U.S. News & World Report]]'' ranked Cleveland Clinic No. 2 on its list of [[U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals Rankings|Best Hospitals]] 2017-2018 and No. 1 for cardiology and heart surgery.<ref name="Christ17">{{cite news |title=Cleveland Clinic named No. 2 hospital by U.S. News for the second consecutive year |last1=Christ |first1=Ginger |url=http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2017/08/cleveland_clinic_named_no_2_ho.html |newspaper=[[The Plain Dealer]] |date=8 August 2017 |accessdate=6 February 2018}}</ref><ref name="Mukherjee17">{{cite news |title=Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic top list of Best Hospitals in America |last1=Mukherjee |first1=Sy |url=http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/best-hospitals-america/ |newspaper=[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]] |date=8 August 2017 |accessdate=6 February 2018}}</ref> Ten of the hospital's specialties ranked in the top five across the country: cardiology and heart surgery, diabetes and endocrinology, gastroenterology and GI surgery, geriatrics, gynecology, nephrology, orthopedics, pulmonology; rheumatology; and urology.<ref name="Christ17">{{cite news |title=Cleveland Clinic named No. 2 hospital by U.S. News for the second consecutive year |last1=Christ |first1=Ginger |url=http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2017/08/cleveland_clinic_named_no_2_ho.html |newspaper=[[The Plain Dealer]] |date=8 August 2017 |accessdate=6 February 2018}}</ref><ref name="Lin-Fisher17">{{cite news |title=Cleveland Clinic again near top of national rankings of hospitals; Cleveland Clinic Akron General ranks 10th in state |last1=Lin-Fisher |first1=Betty |url=https://www.ohio.com/akron/news/local/cleveland-clinic-again-near-top-of-national-rankings-of-hospitals-cleveland-clinic-akron-general-ranks-10th-in-state |newspaper=[[Akron Beacon Journal]] |date=8 August 2017 |accessdate=6 February 2018}}</ref> Nine pediatric specialties were ranked in the top 50.<ref name="Washington17">{{cite news |title=Cleveland Clinic, Rainbow on U.S. News' Best Children's Hospitals rankings |last1=Washington |first1=Julie |url=http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2017/06/cleveland_clinic_rainbow_on_us.html |newspaper=[[The Plain Dealer]] |date=27 June 2017 |accessdate=6 February 2018}}</ref>

Would you consider these edits? Thanks, ClevelandClinicES (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

I would object to this. The Cleveland Clinic can't write the Cleveland Clinic article for Wikipedia. The table is clear enough. SarahSV (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Wholeheartedly agree with SarahSV. Neutrality is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. We cannot accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative (as the old song goes). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SarahSV. Thank you for reviewing this proposal and updating the table with the current rankings.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, I think you might have misinterpreted this request as it was intended only to update the US News and World rankings and did not otherwise aim to change the section, so no critical details would be lost. It seems that Sarah SV has made the edits that are considered most appropriate for now, so I'll consider my request answered. ClevelandClinicES (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation (section)

@50.201.195.170: This section has been the subject of a great deal of discussion here. If you would like to join the discussion, please do so. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. @SlimVirgin:, It looks like we have 3+ users, Kendall-K1, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris and others, who think this section is avertorialesque and the table needs to be removed. Yet it's still here. A neutral, prose presentation of the good and bad reviews, together, is a must, and should make the section adhere to the neutrality policy. The section is an advertisement. The first half of the section is glowing reports from USNWR of 6 years ago, yet most reports of the place (at the end of the section, hidden below a huge chart) are negative. Equal prominence to each is appropriate, isn't it, SlimVirgin et. al.? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had not removed the table because it didn't seem we had consensus on what, if anything, to replace it with. Maybe you could come up with something? I would still be in favor of removing the table. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a problem with the table. I've made it shorter so that it takes up less space, in case that's the issue. SarahSV (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An improvement - it looks better now, even on a narrow display. I'll give it a shot, K1. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to remove the table, but it won't bother me too much if there's a consensus to keep it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Apropos your partial revert, SarahSV - I made the change intentionally. The edit summary suggests you reverted me as if you think I made a mistake. I don't believe I did. The reference makes it clear that it's the sum of points assigned to each the individual specialty rankings that determines the Honor Roll score. Please check for yourself. I edited the text to inform the reader of that. So my edit is more informative than the previous wording, and the same length. And the text was moved so that it is before the reference that backs it up. Please consider reverting or helping me understand why if you still prefer the article with your partial revert.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure that the ranking was based only on the information in our table. We list 16 areas. The source says:

U.S. News ranks hospital performance in 16 areas of complex specialty care and also rates hospitals in nine bellwether procedures and conditions such as heart bypass, hip and knee replacement, heart failure and lung cancer surgery. The Best Hospitals Honor Roll takes both the specialty rankings and the procedure and condition ratings into account. Hospitals received points if they were nationally ranked in one of the 16 specialties – the more specialties and the higher their rank, the more points they got – and also if they were rated "high performing" in the nine procedures and conditions. The top 20 point-getters made up the Honor Roll, which has a maximum total of 480 points.

SarahSV (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing my attention to the details. You're right, its not just the 16. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USNWR says:

The national Best Hospitals and Best Children's Hospitals rankings, for example, are meant to be used as guidance when life is in the balance or an uncommon condition or procedure is involved. Most patients, thankfully, will not need to consult them.

My emphasis. So why do we give 'em such prominence? Any reason, SarahSV? I think we should remove it, even more so after reading that. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Safety and other issues

Full disclosure: I have a nonfinancial conflict of interest in regards to Cleveland Clinic. With that said, I believe there is a disproportionate emphasis on past safety issues in this subsection. Although I believe this information should be retained, I also think there needs to be more emphasis on how these concerns were addressed by Cleveland Clinic and what the safety ratings are today. At the moment this is only a short mention of more recent safety data as opposed to the detailed past safety issues. Finally, I think this would the appropriate section to list some major breakthroughs that occurred at Cleveland Clinic (in a concise, non-editorialized fashion). Thoughts? Wikiuser5991 (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly like to see a section on major breakthroughs. SarahSV (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the website for the clinic. We do not erase history. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting we erase anything; I am only suggesting we add more information about recent safety ratings that are demonstrably better than the older ratings. Without this added detail, this section is simply misleading, as it suggest the Clinic is still suffering from safety concerns. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
also please do see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hospitals#RfC_on_rules_for_rankings,_reputation_for_hospitals_and_related_institutions, which I just implemented here. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The revised Reputation section exacerbates the issue I mentioned. I am fine with removing the specialty rankings table, but I strongly believe there should be detailed information about more recent safety information (what little there was present in the previous version has been completely removed). Additionally, I think the U.S. News rankings are widely used in healthcare and are based on objective metrics more so than general reputation. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiuser5991, you're welcome to write up a draft section on a user page for other editors to consider. I'd have no objection to seeing the safety paragraphs updated if you have good sources. SarahSV (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I’ll post a draft here within the week. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]