deletions | additions       diff --git a/begin_section_Introduction_Preliminary_efforts__.tex b/begin_section_Introduction_Preliminary_efforts__.tex  index f7bc5e2..17f752e 100644  --- a/begin_section_Introduction_Preliminary_efforts__.tex  +++ b/begin_section_Introduction_Preliminary_efforts__.tex 
...
\begin{section}{Introduction}  Preliminary efforts and literature review led to the creation of Narrative Descriptions. The user was asked to describe an event, and associated emotions. Then a discussion was added with three points of view, personal, interpersonal-communicative, and organizational. Originally these were for discussion within our group. Later we suggested a written narrative focus be added with consideration of probable uses: editing and re-reading, a naive reader, a teaching file, a categorization or an ontology. These could be characterized as goals or \emph{WorkPoints.} \textit{}{WorkPoints.}  Our beginning trials with the Narrative Discussions revealed a complexity requiring a more complete examination of events. We discovered John Flanagan’s early work on the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) \cite{Flanagan1953}, His goal was to develop scientific basis for identifying crititcal critical  factors to account for WWII student pilots who failed in training. Previously reasons given by examiners were often cliches or lacked depth. This large careful study with well defined goals led to manyother  applications both in aviation and later in manufacturing, business, management and nursing \cite{Fivars198012}. (PubMed alone has 2543 articles and 231 review articles on CIT in Nursing.) Early attempts to cope with medical error tended to focus on a model of Blame and Train however, safety studies from other fields suggested there was greater complexity. To a psychiatrist it appeared there was little attempt to search for problems outside of awareness, due to unconscious, denied or unobserved detail. We combined the approach of examining specific events (CIT) with pushing the user to consider emotional reactions and states in our Complex Context Critical Incident Report (CCCIR). In this approach the user applies multiple points of view to include the nature of communication, or lack thereof, and systemic/organizational factors.  We asked users of our reflection tools to include any possiblerelevant  associations: what comes to mind, even if it was a tune, a book, a movie, a distant memory of an event. \cite{Devlin2014} Keywords are added for future categorization or teaching. \emph{WorkPoints} \textit{WorkPoints}  \marginnote{WorkPoints is written in CamelCase to emphasize text has special meaning in our methodology. Wikipedia on CamelCase: \url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CamelCase}} could indicate ideas to be explored, related concepts, or plans of action or solution. The rather complicated template embraces and clarifies complex situations The final tool was called a Complex Context Critical Incident Report (CCCIR). While users can rapidly learn to use such a template a simplified unit was needed for self-training in close observation and participant observation. Repetitive use also increases recall, associations, and resolves minor impasse.   \pagebreak