Corrections & Clarifications Policy

We welcome correction requests with gratitude, recognizing that our readers are our most valuable quality assurance partners. Audience feedback, internal audits, regulatory alerts, or subject matter experts may initiate a correction request, and we treat every request with the seriousness it deserves. All requests are logged in our editorial issue tracker within one business day, because we understand that delays in addressing errors can compound their impact. We believe that a culture that encourages error reporting is stronger than one that discourages it, and we actively foster that culture through responsiveness, appreciation, and action.

The editorial owner assesses the severity of each issue with careful judgment, categorizing it as minor, substantive, or critical. This assessment is not about minimizing errors—it is about ensuring that our response matches the potential impact. Minor errors receive prompt correction, substantive errors receive comprehensive review and correction, and critical errors receive immediate, all-hands attention. We recognize that in healthcare, what might seem minor in another context can have serious implications, and we err on the side of caution in our assessments.

Critical issues affecting patient safety or regulatory compliance receive immediate executive escalation, because we understand that in these cases, every moment matters. There are no bureaucratic delays, no approval chains that slow response—there is only urgent action to correct the error and prevent harm. We have established clear escalation paths that bypass normal processes when patient safety is at stake, because we recognize that our organizational efficiency must never come at the expense of human wellbeing.

When an error is identified, we respond with the same rigor we apply to initial publication. Editors collaborate closely with subject matter experts to verify the correct information, ensuring that our corrections are not just different, but definitively accurate. We update source citations, revise affected assets comprehensively, and ensure that the correction addresses not just the immediate error, but any related inaccuracies that might have been introduced. We understand that a partial correction can be as misleading as the original error, and we commit to thoroughness in every correction we make.

Transparency in corrections is non-negotiable. A detailed change log entry accompanies every update, documenting the nature of the correction, who verified the accuracy, who approved the change, and exactly when it occurred. This documentation serves multiple purposes: it provides accountability, enables auditing, and demonstrates our commitment to transparency. We believe that our readers deserve to know not just that we corrected an error, but how we corrected it and who was responsible for ensuring its accuracy.

For critical issues, we go beyond simple corrections—we publish standalone correction notices that are impossible to miss, update all social media distributions to ensure the correction reaches everyone who saw the original error, and notify subscribers directly through email or other channels. We recognize that when an error has the potential to cause harm, our responsibility extends beyond correcting the content to ensuring that everyone who might have been misled receives the correction. This comprehensive approach reflects our understanding that in healthcare communications, the impact of errors extends far beyond the original publication.

We make corrections visible and clear, because hiding errors would be a betrayal of trust. Visible correction labels appear prominently at the top or bottom of updated pieces, including the date of correction and a clear summary of what was changed. We do not use euphemisms or vague language—we state clearly what was wrong and how it was corrected, because our readers deserve complete transparency. We believe that visible corrections are not admissions of failure—they are demonstrations of integrity and commitment to accuracy.

Previous versions of corrected content are carefully archived for auditing and regulatory review, recognizing that the historical record matters. Access is restricted to authorized personnel to protect privacy and prevent misuse, but the archive exists to ensure that we can always demonstrate what was published, when it was published, and how it was corrected. This archival process is not about covering our tracks—it is about maintaining a complete, honest record of our editorial process and our commitment to continuous improvement.

We analyze correction trends quarterly with the seriousness they deserve, using these analyses to drive continuous improvement in fact-checking, editorial review, and source verification processes. Every correction is a data point that helps us understand where our processes might be strengthened, where additional training might be needed, and where we can prevent future errors. We believe that organizations that learn from their mistakes become stronger, and we are committed to that learning process. This analysis is not about assigning blame—it is about building systems that make errors less likely and corrections more effective.