diff --git a/docs/cdm54ToolingSupport.html b/docs/cdm54ToolingSupport.html
index 0a14222..1ef58a5 100644
--- a/docs/cdm54ToolingSupport.html
+++ b/docs/cdm54ToolingSupport.html
@@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ Support</strong></h1>
 make use of which OMOP CDM fields. The goal is to inform ETL developers,
 tooling developers and CDM extensions.</p>
 <ul>
-<li>For ETL developers it helps to have guidance on which fieds to
+<li>For ETL developers it helps to have guidance on which fields to
 prioritise in the mapping. Most value will be gained from populating
 fields support across the OHDSI tooling.</li>
 <li>For OHDSI tooling developers, this page provides insight in the gaps
diff --git a/rmd/cdm54ToolingSupport.RMD b/rmd/cdm54ToolingSupport.RMD
index 04d5602..42c7dd6 100644
--- a/rmd/cdm54ToolingSupport.RMD
+++ b/rmd/cdm54ToolingSupport.RMD
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ output:
 This tables below contain an overview of which standard OHDSI tools make use of which OMOP CDM fields.
 The goal is to inform ETL developers, tooling developers and CDM extensions.
 
-- For ETL developers it helps to have guidance on which fieds to prioritise in the mapping. Most value will be gained from populating fields support across the OHDSI tooling.
+- For ETL developers it helps to have guidance on which fields to prioritise in the mapping. Most value will be gained from populating fields support across the OHDSI tooling.
 - For OHDSI tooling developers, this page provides insight in the gaps of support and can drive future development efforts.
 - For CDM extenstions, it helps to known what it means for an OMOP CDM table/field to be part of the standard. In other words: what OHDSI tooling do we at least expect to support the new extensions?