http://www.blessinghospital.com/graphics/assets/media/Emergency%20Medical%20Services/PEDS%20S03.pdf
1. Content: Ok so I'm not going to lie, this one is 48 pages....I did not read them all but skimmed some instead :). This article/site seems VERY informative on Peds Trauma. It goes from intro to nursing diagnoses and trauma scores. This site is actually the State of Illinois Trauma Nurse Specialist Program course content. I like the information provided here. There is even a quiz at the end.
2. Design: The article is not flashy but does not need to be. There are graphs and table where appropriate. There are no pictures or visuals though. I think this would be more helpful in this type of article.
3. Disclosure: This article clearly states at the top who wrote it. The author has the credentials of RN, BSN, TNS (Trauma Nurse Specialist) and CEN (Certified Emergency Nurse).
4. Currency: There are 3 dates associated with this article. I am assuming these are when it was updated. The most recent is Jan 2003. It is getting some date on it and I'm sure there is probably some new information out there.
5. Authority of sources. There is a list of resources at the end of the article. 1992 is the oldest resource.
6. Ease of use: Even though the article is long, it is easy to navigate however a bad to navigate to different sections would be nice. The graphs and tables are easy to read and understand.
7. Accessibility: I accessed the site via Yahoo search. I also saved the address and got back to it that way. You also may be able to search for the name of the document.
8. Intended Audience: The inteded audience for this site/article is nurses interested in the Trauma Nurse Specialist program in Illinois.
9. Contact addresses: There is no contact address associated with the article.
10. User support: There is no user support for this article however, I'm not sure there is any needed. If one has questions on the content answers can be found through other medical sites.
Summary: I will definately be using this information for my online community. Even though the information is from 2003, the information is very concise and accurate from what I can tell. I enjoyed reading through the information for this critique. Also I read on one of the sites posted on Blackboard for critiqing that the % in the address indicates users, members, or people that use it. I think the % before and after the wording indicates the site is for emergency medical services staff interested in Peds.
Friday, January 30, 2009
4th Critique
http://www.endonurse.com/articles/541feat2.html
This is the site for my 4th critique. It is a site/article on GI Emergencies.
1. Content: The content of this article is strictly limited to GI Emergencies. Included in it is information regarding Peds GI and Adult GI problems. There is not an extreme amount of information on Peds GI emergencies within the article.
2. Design: This article is somewhat "boring" because it lacks visuals. It is only wording, no graphs, pictures, etc. If it were longer than what it is the reader may get bored with just reading and may not finish the article.
3. Disclosure: The article is appears to be written by Kathy Dix on 4/1/05. It is part of the EndoNurse newsletter. This newsletter states it is used as continuing advancement for endoscopy nurses. The site is also copyrighted. It seems like a legitimate newsletter for this population of nurses.
4. Currency: The article was written on 4/1/05 so it is within 4 years of the publish date. This site where the article is does not get updated periodically because this is just an article. Perhaps the original EndoNurse site does. When I looked at the original site I do not see an update time.
5. Authority of sources: The credentials are not provided by the editor or staff writers name so I do not know what kind of credentials they have to write this article. The author of the article itself also does not have credentials with it.
6. Ease of use: This article is very easy to use since it is all writing. There are no links to click or navigate to.
7. Accessibility: The article was easily accessible by saving the link. One could also go to EndoNurse.com and search for the article to find it.
8. Intended Audience: The intended audience for this site is endoscopy nurses as the site is for them. However, I think any type of nurse would benefit some from reading the article as well.
9. Contact addresses: When the contacts link was clicked it takes you to phone and email addresses for the editor, staff writer, copyright agent, advertising/medical group, and marketing.
10. Support: There is a search engine, newsletter sign-up, you can email the above named people, tags for the article, and similar articles. I do not see a specific help menu or tab.
In summary, I may use some of this article in my community. What it will most likely be used for is to get specifics on what kind of Peds GI emergencies exist and then I will use another site to get further information on it. This site was alright just not as informative as I would have liked.
This is the site for my 4th critique. It is a site/article on GI Emergencies.
1. Content: The content of this article is strictly limited to GI Emergencies. Included in it is information regarding Peds GI and Adult GI problems. There is not an extreme amount of information on Peds GI emergencies within the article.
2. Design: This article is somewhat "boring" because it lacks visuals. It is only wording, no graphs, pictures, etc. If it were longer than what it is the reader may get bored with just reading and may not finish the article.
3. Disclosure: The article is appears to be written by Kathy Dix on 4/1/05. It is part of the EndoNurse newsletter. This newsletter states it is used as continuing advancement for endoscopy nurses. The site is also copyrighted. It seems like a legitimate newsletter for this population of nurses.
4. Currency: The article was written on 4/1/05 so it is within 4 years of the publish date. This site where the article is does not get updated periodically because this is just an article. Perhaps the original EndoNurse site does. When I looked at the original site I do not see an update time.
5. Authority of sources: The credentials are not provided by the editor or staff writers name so I do not know what kind of credentials they have to write this article. The author of the article itself also does not have credentials with it.
6. Ease of use: This article is very easy to use since it is all writing. There are no links to click or navigate to.
7. Accessibility: The article was easily accessible by saving the link. One could also go to EndoNurse.com and search for the article to find it.
8. Intended Audience: The intended audience for this site is endoscopy nurses as the site is for them. However, I think any type of nurse would benefit some from reading the article as well.
9. Contact addresses: When the contacts link was clicked it takes you to phone and email addresses for the editor, staff writer, copyright agent, advertising/medical group, and marketing.
10. Support: There is a search engine, newsletter sign-up, you can email the above named people, tags for the article, and similar articles. I do not see a specific help menu or tab.
In summary, I may use some of this article in my community. What it will most likely be used for is to get specifics on what kind of Peds GI emergencies exist and then I will use another site to get further information on it. This site was alright just not as informative as I would have liked.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
3rd site for critique
http://www.columbia.edu/ccnmtl/projects/eprep/children/print.html
1. Content: The site begins as a scenario in pediatric care and mass incident. It goes on to go over a vast amount of information related to pediatric care and emergencies. I think the content is very thorough and informative.
2. Design: The site is very long and not broken up. There is no way to help navigate the site other than using the scroll bar. Most of the information is in text while there are some pictures and tables to assist in learning.
3. Disclosure: At the bottom of the page is the disclosure of resources. The site does not directly say who wrote it however it is part of the Columbia University School of Nursing site. This is also noted by the .edu address.
4. Currency: The information was copyrighted in 2005. Other than that I do not see a date that states how frequently or when the site was last updated.
5. Authority of resources: The site is from Columbia University so I would think it is pretty reliable. Also, resources are posted at the end of the site, one of which is a textbook.
6. Ease of use: I would like to have seen some sort of assistance with navigation of the site so one does not have to continue scrolling. It is a very long site.
7. Accessibility: The site is easily accessed and I had no problems getting to the site.
8. Intended audience: Since the site if from the Nursing School at Columbia University I would think the information is aimed at nursing students.
9. Contact Addresses: There are no contact addresses posted on the page. However, I think it would be easy to find some contact information for Columbia University's Nursing School by looking at the University's main page.
10. User Support: There is no support provided on the page however, I don't think its needed on this page. There are no links to click or navigate away from. It is one long page.
Overall, I think this was a fairly good site. It is from a reputable source and the information seems concise and correct. It did not have a date for currency however it was copyrighted 2005 which is pretty current. I will probably utilize this site for my community.
1. Content: The site begins as a scenario in pediatric care and mass incident. It goes on to go over a vast amount of information related to pediatric care and emergencies. I think the content is very thorough and informative.
2. Design: The site is very long and not broken up. There is no way to help navigate the site other than using the scroll bar. Most of the information is in text while there are some pictures and tables to assist in learning.
3. Disclosure: At the bottom of the page is the disclosure of resources. The site does not directly say who wrote it however it is part of the Columbia University School of Nursing site. This is also noted by the .edu address.
4. Currency: The information was copyrighted in 2005. Other than that I do not see a date that states how frequently or when the site was last updated.
5. Authority of resources: The site is from Columbia University so I would think it is pretty reliable. Also, resources are posted at the end of the site, one of which is a textbook.
6. Ease of use: I would like to have seen some sort of assistance with navigation of the site so one does not have to continue scrolling. It is a very long site.
7. Accessibility: The site is easily accessed and I had no problems getting to the site.
8. Intended audience: Since the site if from the Nursing School at Columbia University I would think the information is aimed at nursing students.
9. Contact Addresses: There are no contact addresses posted on the page. However, I think it would be easy to find some contact information for Columbia University's Nursing School by looking at the University's main page.
10. User Support: There is no support provided on the page however, I don't think its needed on this page. There are no links to click or navigate away from. It is one long page.
Overall, I think this was a fairly good site. It is from a reputable source and the information seems concise and correct. It did not have a date for currency however it was copyrighted 2005 which is pretty current. I will probably utilize this site for my community.
2nd Critique on Peds Emergencies
http://www.pediatriconcall.com/fordoctor/diseasesandcondition/PEDIATRIC_EMERGENCIES/PEDIATRIC_EMERGENCY.asp
This is the site for the 2nd critique for my online community on Pediatric Emergencies.
1. Content: The content of this site is quite broad. At the left hand side are tabs for diagnoses, grand rounds, cases, discussion, etc. In the middle of the page is Pediatric Emergency News. This includes new topics, cases and more diagnoses. To the right of the page is a column titled "Diseases" which includes numerous pediatric diseases and conditions. At the top is a "Doctor's corner, Parent's corner, and Child's corner." Also included is a vaccine reminder, poll, news, search box, peds tools and medical tools. The information seems very informative and complete.
2. Design: The design is not fancy. Each section is neatly divided off and things don't run together. Things are uniform and not too "busy."
3. Disclosure: The site is titled "Pediatric Oncall: Child Health Care." The site is copyrighted to the same company "Pediatric Oncall" There is a disclaimer at the bottom stating that the information is provided by medical, paramedical, and health providers voluntarily and is only meant for information purposes. The site does not guarantee accuracy or authenticity. This statement makes me a little leary of using this information in my online community.
4. Currency: The site is copyrighted 2000-2008. I do not see a date that shows how often the site is updated.
5. Authority: As mentioned in the disclosure section, the site only gives that the information is provided by "Pediatric Oncall." It does not show who is part of that group or allow me to access topic information without logging in.
6. Ease of Use: The site seems easy to use however, one has to have a username and password to access information.
7. Accessibility: The site requires one to login to use it. I attempted to create a login to access the site however in doing so it requested a "Doctor's Registration Number." Since I do not have this I was not able to login.
8. Intended Audience: Because of the registration requirements it appears this site is aimed at doctors/other practitioners with a registration number.
9. Contact: When I found the contact information I was suprised to find the contact phone number and address are located in Mumbai.
10. User Support: I do not see any type of help menu for user support on the site.
In summary, I do not think I will be using this site for several reasons. (1) I do not know who the authors are. (2) The contact information is in Mumbai, the healthcare information in that country is likely different from ours. (3) One cannot use the site without having a registration number. (4) I do not know how current the information is because there is no date.
This is the site for the 2nd critique for my online community on Pediatric Emergencies.
1. Content: The content of this site is quite broad. At the left hand side are tabs for diagnoses, grand rounds, cases, discussion, etc. In the middle of the page is Pediatric Emergency News. This includes new topics, cases and more diagnoses. To the right of the page is a column titled "Diseases" which includes numerous pediatric diseases and conditions. At the top is a "Doctor's corner, Parent's corner, and Child's corner." Also included is a vaccine reminder, poll, news, search box, peds tools and medical tools. The information seems very informative and complete.
2. Design: The design is not fancy. Each section is neatly divided off and things don't run together. Things are uniform and not too "busy."
3. Disclosure: The site is titled "Pediatric Oncall: Child Health Care." The site is copyrighted to the same company "Pediatric Oncall" There is a disclaimer at the bottom stating that the information is provided by medical, paramedical, and health providers voluntarily and is only meant for information purposes. The site does not guarantee accuracy or authenticity. This statement makes me a little leary of using this information in my online community.
4. Currency: The site is copyrighted 2000-2008. I do not see a date that shows how often the site is updated.
5. Authority: As mentioned in the disclosure section, the site only gives that the information is provided by "Pediatric Oncall." It does not show who is part of that group or allow me to access topic information without logging in.
6. Ease of Use: The site seems easy to use however, one has to have a username and password to access information.
7. Accessibility: The site requires one to login to use it. I attempted to create a login to access the site however in doing so it requested a "Doctor's Registration Number." Since I do not have this I was not able to login.
8. Intended Audience: Because of the registration requirements it appears this site is aimed at doctors/other practitioners with a registration number.
9. Contact: When I found the contact information I was suprised to find the contact phone number and address are located in Mumbai.
10. User Support: I do not see any type of help menu for user support on the site.
In summary, I do not think I will be using this site for several reasons. (1) I do not know who the authors are. (2) The contact information is in Mumbai, the healthcare information in that country is likely different from ours. (3) One cannot use the site without having a registration number. (4) I do not know how current the information is because there is no date.
1st Critique
Here is the address for my first critique site:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/112/24_suppl/IV-167
1. The content of this site includes information on Pediatric Advanced Life Support. It includes the 2005 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. The 2005 guidelines seem a little old to me but perhaps there are no new guidelines posted yet. I will look through this site and see it I can find current recommendations. The content seems very complete and includes information such as respiratory failure, shock, airway, breathing, circulation, vascular access, emergency fluids and medications, PALS algorithms, etc. There is a vast amount of information provided on this site.
2. Design: The design is simple yet it gets the job done. With all the information provided, I think too much design and glitz would distract the reader from the task at hand (learning and PALS). The site includes visuals of PALS algorithms so one can view them. It also provides a navigation box at the right every few subjects to help navigate to other topics.
3. Disclosure of Authors/Sponsors/Developers: Directly at the top right of the document is the American Heart Association logo and I think this easily proclaims who has made the site. AHA is a non-profit organization and I think it is clearly shown. This article was published in Circulation magazine and this is also clearly documented with year, edition number, and pages. The article was created from 265 resources and all are clearly sited at the end of the article.
4. Information of currency: The article was written in 2005 and includes the 2005 guidelines. Possibly on the AHA website are more current guidelines. I will look.
5. Authority of Resources: Since this article/site was published by the American Heart Association I would say it is a very reliable source.
6. Ease of use: One can scroll through the enire document if desired. There is also a navigation bar periodically placed in the document to help navigate to other parts of it. I would say it is pretty easy to use.
7. Accessibility and availability: The site was easy to access when I did a search for "Pediatric emergencies" from the Yahoo search engine. I bookmarked the site on my favorites and it took me directly back when I wanted to go back.
8. Intended Audience: The intended audience for this article appears to be directed at those pursuing PALS certification. This would include nurses, physicians, and other healthcare workers.
9. Contact Address: At the top of the site is a link to "Contact AHA." I clicked the link and it took me to an email address, a phone number to call, and a physical mailing address. It also provided a link to contact the local AHA office.
10. User Support: There is a help link at the top of the site also. When clicked this takes you to subscriber information, features of the magazine, tips for web browsing, FAQs, problems with slow site, help with viewing multimedia, and help obtaining graphics viewing software. I would say it it pretty user friendly. If one had a question about the content of the information they could email AHA.
11. Misc: The site allows access to other AHA journals, Circulation magazine home site, subscriptions, archives, and a place to send feedback into the site.
Overall, I think this is a very reputable and reliable site for information regarding PALS and Pediatric Emergencies. I will most likely be using this in my online community.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/112/24_suppl/IV-167
1. The content of this site includes information on Pediatric Advanced Life Support. It includes the 2005 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. The 2005 guidelines seem a little old to me but perhaps there are no new guidelines posted yet. I will look through this site and see it I can find current recommendations. The content seems very complete and includes information such as respiratory failure, shock, airway, breathing, circulation, vascular access, emergency fluids and medications, PALS algorithms, etc. There is a vast amount of information provided on this site.
2. Design: The design is simple yet it gets the job done. With all the information provided, I think too much design and glitz would distract the reader from the task at hand (learning and PALS). The site includes visuals of PALS algorithms so one can view them. It also provides a navigation box at the right every few subjects to help navigate to other topics.
3. Disclosure of Authors/Sponsors/Developers: Directly at the top right of the document is the American Heart Association logo and I think this easily proclaims who has made the site. AHA is a non-profit organization and I think it is clearly shown. This article was published in Circulation magazine and this is also clearly documented with year, edition number, and pages. The article was created from 265 resources and all are clearly sited at the end of the article.
4. Information of currency: The article was written in 2005 and includes the 2005 guidelines. Possibly on the AHA website are more current guidelines. I will look.
5. Authority of Resources: Since this article/site was published by the American Heart Association I would say it is a very reliable source.
6. Ease of use: One can scroll through the enire document if desired. There is also a navigation bar periodically placed in the document to help navigate to other parts of it. I would say it is pretty easy to use.
7. Accessibility and availability: The site was easy to access when I did a search for "Pediatric emergencies" from the Yahoo search engine. I bookmarked the site on my favorites and it took me directly back when I wanted to go back.
8. Intended Audience: The intended audience for this article appears to be directed at those pursuing PALS certification. This would include nurses, physicians, and other healthcare workers.
9. Contact Address: At the top of the site is a link to "Contact AHA." I clicked the link and it took me to an email address, a phone number to call, and a physical mailing address. It also provided a link to contact the local AHA office.
10. User Support: There is a help link at the top of the site also. When clicked this takes you to subscriber information, features of the magazine, tips for web browsing, FAQs, problems with slow site, help with viewing multimedia, and help obtaining graphics viewing software. I would say it it pretty user friendly. If one had a question about the content of the information they could email AHA.
11. Misc: The site allows access to other AHA journals, Circulation magazine home site, subscriptions, archives, and a place to send feedback into the site.
Overall, I think this is a very reputable and reliable site for information regarding PALS and Pediatric Emergencies. I will most likely be using this in my online community.
Just beginning
Hello guys,
Well I've created this here blog page for class....It's just getting started. We will call it a work in progress. I have been searching the internet for sites related to my online community. I will begin to post some of the sites and the critiques on them soon. Any comments you have would be appreciated!
~Heather
Well I've created this here blog page for class....It's just getting started. We will call it a work in progress. I have been searching the internet for sites related to my online community. I will begin to post some of the sites and the critiques on them soon. Any comments you have would be appreciated!
~Heather
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
