Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Collaborative practice agreement"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Biochemistry&Love
(r)
imported>Cwmhiraeth
(Response)
Line 25: Line 25:
 
::*{{ping|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? [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 
::*{{ping|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? [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 
:::*{{ping|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 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3694445/#!po=2.63158 source], "Randomized controlled trials involving pharmacist management via a CPA demonstrate positive outcomes...[lists outcomes, etc.]" under the section, "Benefits of a CPA." ―[[User:Biochemistry&amp;Love|<span style="letter-spacing:1px"><span style="color:Teal">'''Bio'''</span><span style="color:seagreen">chemistry</span><span style="color:Teal">🙴</span><span style="color:firebrick">❤</span></span>]] 21:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 
:::*{{ping|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 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3694445/#!po=2.63158 source], "Randomized controlled trials involving pharmacist management via a CPA demonstrate positive outcomes...[lists outcomes, etc.]" under the section, "Benefits of a CPA." ―[[User:Biochemistry&amp;Love|<span style="letter-spacing:1px"><span style="color:Teal">'''Bio'''</span><span style="color:seagreen">chemistry</span><span style="color:Teal">🙴</span><span style="color:firebrick">❤</span></span>]] 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. [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 06:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 +
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 06:10, 6 December 2017

Collaborative practice agreement

  • ... 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).

  • Symbol question.svg 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:
  • Template:Ping 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)
  • Template:Ping 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)