# Talk:Collaborative practice agreement

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)

 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)

Feel free to work on this list and update it as needed!

Incorporate things from this article, which provides an excellent, historical review of the subject
Expand upon physician perspective
Biochemistry&Love (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Edit: completed! New list:

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

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. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 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)

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)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Collaborative practice agreement/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MX (talk · contribs) 18:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


### Review
Hello. I'll happily review this article. My review will consist of 2 parts. On the first one, I will go over any grammatical/spelling mistakes. On the second part, I will go over each source individually and check that the text is supported by them. Should not take me more than a few days. Please feel free to disagree with any of my suggestions. Thanks for writing this and I look forward to reviewing it. Big thanks, MX (✉ • ✎) 18:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


### Part 1
@Biochemistry&Love: Hi, here is part one of my review. Overall, this is a pretty interesting article. I added a few citation needed tags to claims that needed a source, and did some copyediting along the way. I'm a bit worried about the scope (i.e. whole section on Alaska, but no mention of most states besides their approval years, and expanding the Physician perspective section). The lead claim that "CPAs have become the subject of intense debate within the pharmacy and medical professions" seems to fall short when you read the opinion of a few pharmacists/healthcare experts in the section. Could this be expanded too? MX (✉ • ✎) 15:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the Alaksa point; it seems like the article will likely be incomplete without a mention to every state. I also agree that the "intensity" of the debate is not supported by the lack of sources of the article. I'll see if I can expand that as well. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 01:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Below are some of the issues that need immediate attention. Part 2 will follow later:

Intro
To participate in collaborative drug therapy management (CDTM). - Why is this in bold? From my understanding, bold should only be done when it is the name of the article or an alternative name.
Agreed, per MOS:NOBOLD. Thank you for pointing that out.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 01:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
for the purpose of establishing a legal and ethical basis for pharmacists to participate in collaborative drug therapy management (CDTM). – From my understanding the CDTM term should not be bold since it is not the name of the article or an alternative name for it (as opposed to the others above).
Agreed, as above.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 01:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to remove the references from the lead per WP:LEADCITE? This is highly encouraged for GA and FAs because the lead is asked to be written with greater level of generality than the body, and adding references will only limit that to what that specific sources says (as opposed to it reading like a Wikipedia:Summary style). Just make sure that when you remove the sources, that all the info in the intro is cited elsewhere in the sections below.
Thank you for citing that. I've moved the cited content below, and reworded the lead. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
History
According to Karen E. Koch, PharmD – I would change to “According to healthcare researcher Karen E. Koch, …” as the phrase with PharmD might come across as an appeal to authority. I also feel it gives more background on the person, as opposed to just a mention. I verified the source and did confirm; click DISCLOSURED for this info.
That's a great point. Edited. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
William A. Zellmer – should this guy be redlinked per WP:REDLINK? A quick Google search pulled thousands of results, and at least a few on the main page seem to have passed the notability threshold (beyond just a mention). I will leave it up to you.
I repeated your Google search, and I couldn't agree more. Edited.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
on 'why' the profession – I would italicize the why per MOS:EMPHASIS. Make sure to use the appropriate template.
edit accepted. Miss k8 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
notion of "dependent prescribing authority" would later evolve – though I do not entirely agree with this policy, italics in quotations are considered unnecessary per WP:BADEMPHASIS. Also, please elaborate on the “later” (when?) and add a source at the end of the sentence.
I have reworded the sentence in question, changing its claim to better reflect the source. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
evolve into the modern concept of "collaborative practice agreements." – Add (CPA) since it is used in the following paragraph.
No longer applicable. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
48 states and the District of Columbia – change to Washington, D.C.
edit accepted. Miss k8 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The federal government approved – link Federal government of the United States
edit accepted. Miss k8 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
HB 494 – is the official name House Bill 494? If so, please spell it out.
edit accepted. Miss k8 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
bill died in committee – Is committee referring to this? If so, I would link it to that specific section. Let me know if you do not know how to do that.
I believe so, though it is unclear which committee HB494 died in. I agree with your recommendation; I've added a wikilink to that section.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Delaware N/A – Did the source just skip Delaware? Wow. Have you been able to find info on this?
Haha, yes--they did. The updated 2015 article shades in Delaware on a map of states that allow CPAs, citing an image supposedly taken from information in the 2003 article that never mentions Delaware. However, besides this shading, I have no evidence that Delaware allows CPAs. An article from 2006 claims that Delaware does not allow CPAs; hence, my uncertainty. I tried calling Delaware's Board of Pharmacy, but my call wasn't returned. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Effects on outcomes
Current evidence suggests – when? See WP:RECENT
I removed the time-dependent nature of the claim. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Variation by state
Alaska – Why does Alaska have its own section, but other states do not? I am a bit worried that this might constitute WP:UNDUE weight
That's a fair point. It was merely the first of an intention to expand the article to cover every other state. Do you think I should take that section offline until a 50-state compendium can be amassed?―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Pharmacy advocacy
CPAs are a focus of advocacy efforts for professional pharmacy organizations.[citation needed]  - I added a CN needed tag for this.
This is a summary statement for the section. Do you still think it needs a citation? ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations – I will leave it up to you, but do you think this needs to be redlink per WP:REDLINK?
I do. Thank you! ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 03:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Praise
In a 2011 commentary for the American College of Clinical Pharmacy – use acronym since you added it in the previous section.
edit accepted. Miss k8 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
In the final paragraph, she makes an appeal towards pharmacists that are interesting – interested
edit accepted. Miss k8 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Criticism
In response to the report, a collaboration of seven national professional pharmacy associations drafted a response to the AMA's report on pharmacists – would be great to know what they came back with, at least in a short sentence. This is not a requirement, however.
Great idea! Done. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 03:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
AMA adopted what was seen as a softer tone by APhA – remove “what was seen” to avoid someone tagging it was “According to whom?”
edit accepted. Miss k8 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


### Part 2
I didn't find any of the sources problematic, and the few sources I checked for verification did turn out positive. I wanted to ask about this source in particular. I noticed there are several pages about CPA; have you been able to access them? I tried doing it through my work laptop and it asked me for a subscription, but now I'm doing it on my personal laptop and I was able to access the other 7 pages. Seems like there is some useful information there that you can use it expand the article more. Any thoughts on this?
I've used Koch's article in the article, though I suppose there may be more yet to glean from it. I think it's worth a second look. (: ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Source 11 needs a page verification for the year cited; I added a new URL that virtually has the same info as the downloadable doc that was there before.
I'm not sure if this is what you were asking for, but I've cited the statement before the cited use of Source 11 (this ref, at the time of your review), showing the proper year.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Address the [Citation needed] tags, as mentioned in Part 1
Addressed. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


### CP133 Reviews
Hi all, I (along with a few others) have been assigned to review the recent edits to this page made by my classmates, though I see that much of the review has already been completed. 
As a group, we think that the quality of edits are informative and give insight on the impact of pharmacists and pharmacy services on health care. The addition of legal provisions for North Carolina is helpful in making the state-by-state collaborative practice agreement variation chart more complete. Thank you for expanding on it.Meng1359 (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC) 

Response to edits
Thank you to everyone for their review regarding the article! It's nice to see that there have been so many eyes on this article to make sure it's up to standard. Thank you for your suggestions, your feedback, and for your collaboration. We will take your suggestions regarding state abbreviations into consideration and edit accordingly. Miss k8 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…
I did not find any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. The majority of edits I am able to see are in small pieces preventing plagiarism. I traced larger chunks of information back to the sources and they seem to be summarized rather than copied or paraphrased. Additionally, there is no material that I can see is under copyright on this page.Varshieee (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely accessible? If not, specify…
The statements regarding pharmacist impacts in psychiatric and oncology care utilized 3 primary sources. These were primary sources because it consisted of a randomized control trial, an analysis of a specific medical center's pharmacist-managed clinic implementation, and an analysis of another ambulatory psychiatric pharmacist consultation log specific to a medical center. Under the North Carolina edits, I found that these sources were good examples of verifiable secondary sources that are freely accessible - the North Carolina General Assembly, as well as the North Carolina Board of Pharmacy FAQ and Pharmacy Rule Book.Meng1359 (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles?  If not, specify…
The edits for the most part are formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style for medicine-related articles. There are some capitalization mistakes - mostly state abbreviations in the table. Otherwise, the article's formatting looks great! L-Ion-S (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)...
Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify...
After reading the article a few times and understanding that a collaborative practice agreement (CPA) is specifically for pharmacists and physicians to help manage drug therapies, I do believe the draft submission offers an unbiased perspective. The fact that the physician perspective portion is included, especially helps with removing any doubt of bias. Keep up the good work! Vg661 (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


### Response to review from 10/26/17
Thank you so much for your detailed review of this page. We truly appreciate it and will be using some of the comments to guide further edits over the next couple of months. We'll be incorporating some suggested edits into the appropriate sections as well. Hopefully when you revisit the page in a month or so, you'll find the page more updated. Miss k8 (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


#### Comments from reviewer
Biochemistry&Love and Miss k8: Thanks to both for working on this! I think the article is ripe for promotion. I'm open to extending the hold timeline over the suggested 7-day limit (I understand real life gets in the way sometimes, so let me know how long you would need an extension and we can meet here again). The only things that need updates now are the states and the "Physician perspective" section. 
I won't require all of the states, but at least a dozen of them should be fine (I saw you added Arizona. Thank you for that!). I'm not sure how different each state is, but I'm assuming some states have very similar CPA policies, so you can describe those together if you wish (just a suggestion, that way we aren't adding ~50 sections). If you think that this article might get too long, I guess we can come back here and decide if some state can have their own article (that won't be a requirement for GA, but just wanted to make it clear that there are other options in case the 50-state expansion doesn't work). You can also summarize the states' policies and have them under a single section, that way you don't go into too much detail about each state and get off track from main topic. If you choose this route, you probably don't need to write every single state—perhaps only the relevant ones or those that have significant variations. Let me know what you plan to do!
The "Physician perspective" section is somewhat more complicated, but make sure to describe disputes without engaging in them like you've done so far, per WP:RGA.  Thanks again! Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 03:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW, just thought of something. You can probably add the states in an infobox, similar to what the article Legal drinking age has for countries. You can arrangement however you want, add a few columns of your choice, and you'll have a quick/good source of information! MX (✉ • ✎) 03:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@MX: My pleasure! An extension would be welcomed news. I imagine that at least another week or so would be helpful for adding more state data, though I'll see what I can get done tomorrow.
I like the Legal drinking age article analogy you referenced! I think I'll look into sorting them into something like that. ✓ Done. 17:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
In terms of the Physician perspective WP:NPOV concern, do you think it may be useful to split "Pharmacist advocacy" akin? Though I'm unsure if I'll be able to find any pharmacists speaking ill of the matter, I haven't looked.
Thank you again for your ongoing review! I appreciate your patience with me as I learn how this process works. (: ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 04:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm extremely satisfied with the work done so far. I will promote the article to GA status! Thanks to everyone for the collaborative work. MX (✉ • ✎) 13:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@MX: Thank you kindly for reviewing the article and providing helpful feedback along the way! ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 00:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Biochemistry&Love: Thank you for your additions to the page! It was very rewarding to see the process of improving and growing this article. Miss k8 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@MX: Thank you so much for your detailed review of the article and for the promotion to GA status! Miss k8 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@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. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 22:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I've moved the sections in question here for revisions.

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. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 23:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


### Peer Review by Group 24:
#### 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)