Submited on: 12 Sep 2015 04:39:26 AM GMT
Published on: 14 Sep 2015 09:29:31 AM GMT
Confessions in Essence: The Power of Observation, Acknowledgement and Pure Enlightenment
Posted by Ms. Emily Davis on 19 Nov 2016 04:06:56 AM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    An institutional system for anonymously reporting near-hit-near-miss (NHNM) situations for anesthesia health care providers can allow the providers to educate the community of their mistakes without reprucussions; therefore improving anesthesia education and decreasing further NHNM accidents.

  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The claims are novel.

  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Not applicable.

  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    There were no formal outcomes to report in this article. The system outright failed initially, though there are suggestions stated at the end of the article for how systems can be better managed for better potential outcomes. I would reccomend initiating those suggested changes and observing the success of the system after they are implemented and the revise the article. 

  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    A protocol is provided; however the protocol was devised after the observations from the study had been made. Again, I would reccomend revising the article after the described protocol and all other suggestions have been implemented. 

  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    The methodology is valid; however, since the protocol described in the article has not been tested fully, you do not have true results in the paper to compare if the system was reciprocated elsewhere.

  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    This paper would be greatly improved if there were more results to report. The protocol was devised out of observations of the failures of the first system implemented. The paper would be greatly improved with reports of the success of the system after improvements have been made; however, the reasoning behind the devised protocol is sound.

  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Again I think further research should be done on this paper. 

  • Other Comments:


  • Competing interests:
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:


  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:


  • How to cite:  Davis E .Confessions in Essence: The Power of Observation, Acknowledgement and Pure Enlightenment[Review of the article 'Confessions in Essence: The Power of Observation, Acknowledgement and Pure Enlightenment ' by Rusin K].WebmedCentral 2016;7(11):WMCRW003318
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse