
The lead for this story provided us with a staggering statistical statement:
"...wrong-site operations have taken place five times since 2007."I feel that this was an effective way to really grasp the reader's wondering eyes. It felt as though the page was screaming at us to simply "read more!"
Right from the get-go we were given the most important pieces of information we needed to know after walking away from the paper:
- The amount of surgical errors in the relatively short amount of time: 5 in 2 years
- The amount of money that the hospital has been fined: $150,000
Next, the article gave us the Five W's of their news story.
When: Between the years of 2007-2009
Why: Talks about the importance and the urgency of finding a possible solution to the situation
Where: at Rhode Island Hospital
What: Wrong-site surgeries
Who: gives us views from staff at the hospital and others from positions within the US medical field
In the news story, the news paper quoted the chair of surgery for Banner Desert Medical Center in Mesa, Arizona. He commented on the use of cameras in in operating rooms, saying that it was like expecting that the use of cameras in the cockpit of planes will reduce errors the pilots make. (You can see this in the image to the below.)
It is interesting to see how the writer of this story can make you want to choose to side with those who were being critical of the hospital, while still maintaining the article's neutrality until the end. It gave us a quote. It does not come out and say it itself, but it is clear that it wants you to feel that they should have fixed the problem by now.
"It'll get fixed, but I would have said that when I saw the story two years ago."__________
-Dr. Sidney Wolfe
*Here is a link to the article, just in case you were interested in reading it yourself: [link]
No comments:
Post a Comment