Proposal:Tag:staff count:nurses
| Tag:staff_count:nurses | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Rejected (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | mataharimhairi |
| Tagging: | staff_count:nurses=* |
| Applies to: |  
|
| Definition: | Indicates the average daily number of nurses at a health facility |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | 2019-06-10 |
| RFC start: | 2019-06-17 |
| Vote start: | 2019-07-31 |
| Vote end: | 2019-08-14 |
Proposal
The tag staff_count:nurses=* is used to indicate the average daily number of nurses available at a health facility.
Rationale
The tag staff_count:nurses=* in use, but has not been formally proposed until now. The ability to be able to record how many staff members, particularly doctors and nurses were available at a health facility is extremely important in an emergency situation, where government officials, for example would want to identify a site that can handle the influx of a certain number of patients. Therefore the introduction of ‘staff_count:doctors’ and ‘staff_count:nurses’ is necessary for capturing this information. The use of ‘staff_count:nurses’ was initially proposed by Fabi2 as part of Healthcare 2.0. The Healthcare 2.0 wiki page put together by OSM user Fabi2 is very extensive and informative, but unfortunately the whole page has been listed as abandoned, so it was reviewed and tags were re-purposed where it made sense.
TagInfo, the Wiki and Tag History were used to try and find tags that might already be in use. And although there were some, non of these were ever formally proposed or accepted by the community. Therefore the conclusion to use staff_count:nurses=* was based on the use count of 822 derived from TagInfo and the gradual increase in its usage over time as found on Tag History. Both the information and the snap shots below were taken on June 14. It looks as though there was an initial bulk import in early 2015 but the use of the tag has steadily increased over time.
Applies to
- Nodes
- Areas
- When considering nodes vs areas: generally, if an item is smaller than 5 m by 5 m, it would not be mapped as an area, but as a node.
Tagging
- As a node: place a node at the center of the health facility. Map the facility with the following tags outlined in the useful combination section below, as well as the staff_count:nurses tag. Be sure to add a numerical indicator as to how many nurses generally work at the identified health site.
- As an area: Map the building of the health facility. Tag the facility with the following tags outlined in the useful combination section below, as well as the staff_count:nurses tag. Be sure to add a numerical indicator as to how many nurses generally work at the identified health site.
Useful Combination
- amenity=*
- healthcare=*
- healthcare:speciality=*
- name=*
- operator=*
- operator:type=*
- addr:full=*
- contact:phone=*
- operational_status=*
- opening_hours=*
- beds=*
- staff_count:doctors=*
- healthcare:equipment=*
- dispensing=*
- wheelchair=*
- emergency=*
- insurance:health=*
- water_source=*
- electricity=*
- url=*
- source=*
Examples
Rumirgo, Nigeria
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JUi
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3677493591#map=19/10.58984/13.04239
Kyegegwa, Uganda
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JUj
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6210374896#map=19/0.32668/31.08008
Features/Pages affected
External discussions
See the Global Healthsite Mapping Project wiki page for a full overview of the initiative and OSM data model developed for capturing key health facility information.
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page.
Voting
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was rejected with 1 vote for, 9 votes against and 0 abstentions.
Clearly rejected as a very bad idea
I oppose this proposal. Rational is for valuation of emergency capacity of patients. Bed count is far better to evaluate this, less likely to fluctuate and easier to obtain. --Warin61 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)- I oppose this proposal. See Warin's argument above, and lack of verifiability --Polarbear w (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. - how mapper is supposed to verify it? See Verifiability#Statistical_properties "For example, the use frequency of a road in cars/hour is not a practically verifiable quantity, since determining it would require long-term observations which are not realistic for mappers to do.". Also, comments on Talk:Proposed features/Tag:staff count:nurses were completely ignored from what I see. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. As described above understanding the number of nurses available at a facility is an increasingly popular tag. In the context of rural facilities and area's where health capacity data is poorly defined sharing this information between stakeholders in the health cluster and citizens receiving services is an important humanitarian opportunity to take. -- Markherringer (talk 11:49, 2 August 2019- I oppose this proposal. - Unfortunately I can't support the current version of this proposal. As I mentioned on the Talk page, it's not clear how mappers should confirm if these numbers are correct. It might be possible to change the description to a way that mappers can verify in person, I hope? For example, if there is a complete organisational chart (very popular at clinics in Indonesia) which lists the names of every nurse, we could use that for a total number of nurses at a clinic, but that wouldn't give us the daily average. --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. It can highly fluctuate and is not verifiable on the ground. I think there is no other precedent in OSM where we'd map such things highly dependent on people being doing duty somewhere. See Warin, better use bed count. --Westnordost (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I am uncomfortable with the idea that anybody would rely on OSM data to find a health facility in emergency situations. Approving this tag with the rationale given above would mean that we actively support this use case. This burdens mappers with a hell of a lot of responsibility. For example, one person imports a lot of health facilities, the next person removes the import for not following proper procedure, and then the first person says "OMG now it is your fault that PEOPLE WILL DIE because everyone relies on OSM being the go-to health facility database!". I am not against individual mappers adding detail to hospitals but I am against officially supporting the idea that OSM could become a database of health facilities for emergencies. --Woodpeck (talk)
- I oppose this proposal. I agree with several of the comments above. Hospital capacity might be better represented by bed-count. If a mapper wanted to record the number of staff/doctors/nurses, they could, perhaps inquire of the management how many Full Time Equivalent (FTE) they are officially allowed to have (or have decided to have). Nurses might work part-time, perhaps to accommodate family commitments, so 2 (or more) people could be equivalent to one nurse on duty each day. --PeterPan99 (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. My opinion is the same as expressed on this page --EneaSuper (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. for the reasons above and those stated by me on the tagging ML. —Dieterdreist (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. maybe works in a smal hospital, but how will you count the doctors/nurses in larger hospotals? will you go to the personal office to become the number of it? --Luschi (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note - this voting was not closed but it ended already. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)