Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Collaborative practice agreement

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by feminist (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Collaborative practice agreement edit

(
)
  • ... that a collaborative practice agreement, which allows a pharmacist to prescribe medications, order drug therapy related laboratory tests, and design therapy plans, can improve people's health? Source: "A pharmacist may perform some or all of the following activities under a CPA: “patient assessment; initiate, adjust or discontinue drug therapy; order, interpret and monitor laboratory tests; formulate clinical assessments and develop therapeutic plans; provide care coordination for wellness and prevention of disease; and conduct essential patient education”....Randomized controlled trials involving pharmacist management via a CPA demonstrate positive outcomes, including improved asthma control, higher proportion of patients achieving cholesterol goals, better blood pressure control, improved glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and improved International Normalized Ratio (INR) control and reduced bleeding rates in patients taking warfarin." (link)

Improved to Good Article status by Biochemistry&Love (talk). Self-nominated at 00:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC).

  • This article is a newly promoted GA (Congratulations on your first GA). It is long enough and nominated in good time. The article is neutral and Earwig's tool did not throw up any copivio concerns. The hook is a bit wordy, how about something a bit shorter:
  • Thank you for the review (and the congratulations). ALT1 is a lot less wordy; I like that about it, though it's more of a definition. What about this:
  • @Biochemistry&Love: Sorry for the delay, I did not put this review on my watchlist. Which precise cited sentence in the article backs up the claim that a "collaborative practice agreements improves people's health"? It may be true and it may be obvious but is it a proven fact? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Cwmhiraeth: No worries! Under "Effect on outcomes," this sentence: "Evidence suggests that CPAs have resulted in beneficial health outcomes for patients involved" and the ensuing paragraph. From the cited source, "Randomized controlled trials involving pharmacist management via a CPA demonstrate positive outcomes...[lists outcomes, etc.]" under the section, "Benefits of a CPA." ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 21:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I saw that, but I see a difference between "evidence suggests" and your unqualified statement that it does improve health. I am asking someone at WikiProject Medicine if they are happy with the hook claim. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the article should be updated to better reflect its source, changing the wording from "Evidence suggests" to "Evidence has shown." Thanks for reaching out to someone there. (: I appreciate your diligence. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 12:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem with that is the sources used in the article (PMC3694445 and Pharmacy Times) don't focus on evidence of effectiveness across the broad range of applications of CPAs that would be implied by "Evidence has shown that CPAs have resulted in beneficial health outcomes for patients involved.". The most wide-ranging sentence from PMC3694445 is

    CPAs have been implemented for several disease states including diabetes mellitus, anticoagulation, hyperlipidemia, parenteral nutrition, heart failure, hypertension, smoking cessation, immunization, asthma, and infectious diseases and have generally resulted in positive patient outcomes including improved health status and decreased preventable drug-related problems.

    My personal preference would be to go with the original hook, as it is more accurately reflects the source's "generally resulted in positive patient outcomes" and it lacks jargon like "pharmacist-led drug therapy management". It also has the advantage of explaining to the lay reader what a CPA actually is. HTH --RexxS (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review! After you explained it, I agree that a broader range of applications of CPAs would be implied than that which the article could speak to. Thank you for pointing out my use of jargon as well! I would support the original hook. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 06:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you RexxS. Let's go with the original hook then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Collaborative_practice_agreement&oldid=817915965"