Talk:Collaborative practice agreement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Helenwh, Cp133 student, Miss k8, Lisha.Deng. Peer reviewers: L-Ion-S, Meng1359, Vg661, Varshieee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jessicalngo, Shengqix, KNTran, Maricayabyab. Peer reviewers: Edward Jierjian, JN1018, Julietheenguyen, Dereknguyen93.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ideas for improvement
Feel free to work on this list and update it as needed! Biochemistry&#38;Love (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Incorporate things from this article, which provides an excellent, historical review of the subject
 * Expand upon physician perspective

Edit: completed! New list:

Biochemistry&#38;Love (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Expand upon state-by-state variation in CPA laws
 * Edit: Make the table sortable, via Help:Sorting.

Welcome CP 133 Students
Welcome to Wikipedia, Helenwh, Cp133 student, Miss k8, and Lisha.Deng! I'm happy to see some attention being given to this page. Let me know if I can help you with anything. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   01:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the warm welcome to the page! We'll be sure to reach out to you and welcome your feedback. Miss k8 (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Plan for Edits:
Key concepts to research and include in edits:


 * Comment on background relation to provider status and need for pharmacists during shortage
 * Potential for pharmacist’s roles/functions in future in collaboration with other providers
 * General criteria for Advanced Practice Pharmacy(e.g., how collaborative practice agreement is required)
 * More specific criteria for New Mexico, North Carolina, California, and Montana

Some helpful references:


 * http://appharmacist.com/training/
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5073726/
 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1551741117307131

Miss k8 (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Our Group plans to include information about the bill H.R. 592 / S 109, also known as "Pharmacy and Medically Underserved Areas Enhancement Act," in this article. We will expand the "history" section of the article by noting when the bill was introduced in the House of Representative and the direction that it will lead pharmacy practices. We will also elaborate the impact of the bill in "Effect on outcomes" section. -CP 133 2018 Group 17 (KNTran, MariCayabyab, Jessicalngo, Shengqix)Shengqix (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Formatting
@Lisha.Deng, I appreciate your work on contributing the CPA regulation table. However, please proofread your edits. I've noticed a lot of capitalization errors. Furthermore, try to make your entries more comprehensive. A list of the regulations is unhelpful; you need to draw material from them. If all else, I suggest that you post the sources you find on the talk page for others to synthesize information from. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   22:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the sections in question here for revisions.

Reference naming
When naming references, please do not use arbitrary names like ":1." Instead, shortly describe the reference's title so that others may cite the same reference easily using the "Named references" tool. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   23:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify...
Generally, the article is non-biased. One thing I would like to point out is this paragraph:

"Although pharmacists' scope of practice continue to expand with CPA's, it remains a challenge for pharmacists to provide services under CPAs due to the lack of compensation. Currently, Medicare Part B does not provide reimbursement for pharmacists.[13] The Pharmacy and Medically Underserved Areas Enhancement Act (H.R. 592 / S. 109) was introduced in the House on January 2017.[14] This will allow pharmacists to be reimbursed through Medicare Part B for providing essential healthcare services in federally defined medically underserved communities. Proper compensation will increase CPA utility and allow pharmacists to deliver care to patient in areas with shortages of healthcare providers.[15]"

I felt like this paragraph was leaning towards wanting to expand the pharmacists scope of practice. The sentence: "Although pharmacists' scope of practice continue to expand with CPA's, it remains a challenge for pharmacists to provide services under CPAs due to the lack of compensation." felt like was it leaning towards advocating for expanding the pharmacist scope of practice. Overall, the wiki page was very nonbiased and well written. The sources were also not from biased websites that were advocating for a certain policy. This was a very well made wiki page! --Dereknguyen93 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

2) Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify...
Yes, all added and edited points made by the latest editing group have freely available sources. They are also high quality sources citing specific bills that have shaped the development of the collaborative practice agreement. A suggestion would be to change the link for citation 14 for HR 592 to https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/592/text so that it links directly to the text of the bill rather than the summary page. Also for citation 13, I believe there is a direct link to Chapter 15 of the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, so it would be helpful to directly link it. Otherwise, great work!! Kristinignacio (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

3) Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify...
The article follows wikipedia’s manual of style. It has a very easy to follow layout and the sections added are short and concise. In the paragraph added to the “History” section beginning with “Although pharmacists’ scope of practice…” I think it might be helpful to clarify whose viewpoint this is. Also, is it primarily the lack of compensation or also the lack of physician support as discussed in the “Physician Perspective” section that makes providing services a challenge? Overall the writing is clear and avoids casual language and generalizations! Jacey N. JN1018 (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

4) Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify...
After reviewing articles 13, 14 and 15, I do not see any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. I read the parts in which the information may have been taken from, but the group did not exhibit any form of closed paraphrasing, or unattributed plagiarism. Great job, everyone!

I agree with the suggestions that Kristin had mentioned above, I had trouble accessing the articles for citation 13 and 14 and had to google and find it myself, the above link she had provided would be more beneficial to readers. Julietheenguyen (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review by Group 26:

1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify...

-Yes, the draft submission does appear to reflect a neutral point of view. The page clearly states that collaborative practice agreements are typically between two main stakeholders: physicians and pharmacists. The article goes on to elucidate the nature of such agreements and how they are implemented in various areas of the United States. By including a "pharmacy advocacy section" as well as a "physician perspective," the article is able to retain neutrality by presenting both stakeholders opinions/responses. Jacob.robertson.ucsf (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

2) Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify... Yes, the points are substantiated with easily accessible sources. However, citation 14 and 15 look to be identical so I would consider consolidating the citation into one at the end of the paragraph.WikiJAllen (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

3) Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…

- I think formatting wise, the edits are all consistent with Wikipedia's style. The only thing that can possibly be changed is condensation of the 'variation between states' once more states are filled out but that does not really relate to the edits made by the students. Something else I noted was the last paragraph of the History section. There are some grammatical/spelling errors and pay attention to unifying tenses to be more in-line with wikipedia-style diction (i.e. introduced in 2017 (past); this will allow (future)).--Edward Jierjian (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

4) Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify... No. I checked all the sources and did not find any evidence of plagiarism. I was able to access all sources. However, source 13 took a bit longer to find since it was part of a manual but I think it is a great source in itself. I would edit the reference formatting of source 13 since there is a beginning quotation mark but no end quote. I also suggest re-orienting the tenses so they all match. Great job, everyone :) OuCarol (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

5) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? If not, specify… Overall, I think the group of students added valuable edits to this article that allowed readers to understand the importance of a CPA and the law implemented behind it. I like that they added a sentence describing H.R. 592 / S. 109 and its potential impact because it explains that pharmacists are not currently reimbursed for their services through Medicare Part B. I think this is a fact many people outside of the pharmacy field are unaware of. The group also added reliable, non-biased sources to the article which strengthens credibility. I agree with Kristin from group 24 to include a direct link to the bill for citation 14 (Kristin provided a reliable link in her peer edit). Great job on the contributions to the article and achieving your goals for improvement!Dana89511 (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)