Talk:Pharmacy and Therapeutics

Tar009, Kimhvo, Mikobaya and I will be editing this article as part of our Fall 2018 Health Policy course. Potential updates include editing for specificity ("Most generic drugs are available on formularies" - can we find a source that quantifies or further describes generic coverage on formularies), additional information (differences between hospital and insurance P&T committees), and linking this page to other relevant Wiki pages (for instance, this page should probably be linked on the formulary page). - Julialee2 (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2018 (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): Julialee2, Tar009, Kimhvo, Mikobaya. Peer reviewers: JN1018, Julietheenguyen, Dereknguyen93.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed article outline
There is probably additional info to be added to this page, but at minimum it should include the following: 1. Committee responsibilities * (Outline general responsibilities of a P&T committee here) * Hospitals (Hospital-specific responsibilities) * Health-systems (Health-systems/insurer-specific responsibilities) 2. Committee members (Describe the members of the P&T committee here) Julialee2 (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify...
This article is not biased. I looked at the sources and each of the sources are not from biased websites, the sources were only informing and defining "pharmacy and therapeutics". The tone and atmosphere were neutral and not leaning towards the benefits of having a pharmacy and therapeutics group. Overall, I feel that this wiki page is very informative and nonbiased, I did not feel positive or negative towards the topic pharmacy and therapeutics. Great job on making it non biased!--Dereknguyen93 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

2) Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify...
Overall, every point included in the article by the editing group uses high quality sources such as ASHP. The full article for citation 2 (PMID: 10260199) is not freely available, however the abstract of the article is freely available. The information extracted from this article seems to only correlate to the public available abstract, so it may be okay. However to be safe, I would try to find another fully freely available article for this citation. The date for citation 3 needs to be fixed, but that is minor edit to complete the citation. Lastly, citation 4 which is the book Introduction to Hospital and Health-System Pharmacy Practice is not a freely available source unfortunately, so I would recommend finding a freely available article that also verifies the points made by this citation. Great work in adding high quality information into this starter wiki page! Kristinignacio (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

3) Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify...
The edits are consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. The article starts with a short lead section summarizing the important points related to the topic and is followed by sections discussing key points related to P&T. Every statement is also cited throughout the article.

In the lead section, I would edit the sentence “They must weigh the costs and benefits...which ones a person and the most efficacy…” because it’s a little confusing. I think it’d also be helpful to expand on the last sentence in the lead section “Goals of a P&T committee…” later on in the article so that the reader can understand how the committee does this.

In the “Formulary Restrictions” section I think Wikipedia recommends avoiding statements with “most” and “some.” It might be helpful to cite whose viewpoints these are. Since many of these decisions are specific to each organization, maybe just state what decisions must be made rather than generalize what they actually decide on. Overall the article is very concise and matches Wikipedia’s style in terms of wording and flow! -Jacey N. JN1018 (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

4) Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify...
For the most part, there wasn't much evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation, I believe the only part I have of concern reflects a potential case of plagiarism only because it's really difficult explaining the process of something without using similar wording as the authors' in the article. The following points I'll bring up below are sentences that I identified to have closed paraphrasing.

1. "Goals of a P&T committee are to optimize current policies, communication, and education related to medication use by implementing an evidence-based approach.” Original Text: goals of a P&T committee are to optimize policies, communication, and education related to medication use and to manage a drug formulary to provide the most appropriate and cost-effective care to unique patient populations Comment: I feel that the wording and format of the sentence is too similar to the original text. Perhaps you can describe the roles of the P&T committee without saying the exact words?

2. "The committee may include actively practicing physicians, pharmacists, and nurses from a variety of specialties, as well as administrators and quality assurance staff." Original: The P&T committee is composed of actively participating physicians, other prescribers, pharmacists, nurses, administrators, quality-improvement managers, and other health care professionals and staff who participate in the medication-use process. Comment: According to the dashboard training module, even though the words are different, the format of the sentence is too similar to the original author's and this is considered "closed paraphrasing" even though a citation was given... perhaps you can change around the order of which staff participates in the committee?

3. All members are expected to be sufficiently capable of reviewing literature to form evidence-based decisions Original: All members of a P&T committee should receive training in the critical analysis of medical literature Comment: I'm not completely sure if this would be considered "closed paraphrasing" but I felt like the beginning of the sentence was too similar to the original... perhaps get a second opinion about this one

I hope this information and comments help! Aside from that, good job with the wiki edits! Julietheenguyen (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

CP133 Fall 2018 Group 17 Peer Edit
'''1. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…''' Yes, I believe the draft is written in a neutral point of view. The content is strictly informative, without urging readers in support nor oppose pharmacy and therapeutics committees. This group was able to address the "who, what and how" from an objective standpoint. They were able to address the goals of the committee as well as any relevant expectations from the members of the committee without making it sound like it was based off of their opinion. Great job! Jessicalngo (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

'''2. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify…''' Good citations with high quality. Most of cited secondary sources are reliable and most of the mare freely available for the public. The only one that is not freely available is a PubMed article, "Rodriguez, Ryan; Kelly, Brett J.; Moody, Mary (August 2017)......ISSN 2376-0540." The "ISSN 2376-0540" has a link to "Sorry, we don't know your location. Please enter or re-enter your location below. Submit a complete postal address for best results.". In addition, the last few sentences of the "formulary restrictions" section cannot be verified because they are not referenced. However, it was not a part of the students' edits. KNTran (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

'''3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… The edits formatted are consistent with Wikipedia's style.'''

'''4. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…''' Overall there is minimal evidence of attempted plagiarism or copyright violation as the edits are well-reference. However, as group 24 had mentioned, some sentences have the same key words as the original text. I agree with group 24 and suggest changing the sentence structures and wording (if possible). Doing so will improve the originality of the content and simplify the material for Wikipedia users. Shengqix (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)