Talk:Pharmacist/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Note on education

My sister's currently in the pharmacy program at Drake. As I understand it she has to complete a four year under graduate program (she's a senior this year). Then there's three more years beyond that, followed by an internship. And because its a combined program, I think the senior year the students have both undergrad and grad classes. I'm not sure how the rest of the programs here in the US are structured, if they're similar to Drake's or not. So if what I had down isn't accurate, please feel free to change it.

Thanks
172.173.40.40 23:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Persistent link spamming

There are one or more spammers hitting this (and other drug-related) pages persistently from the 80.58.* IP range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs) 21:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Spelling mistake in opening paragraph

"provding" s/b "providing"; someone please make the change, thanks. 174.6.108.183 (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Physicians diagnose, Pharmacists prescribe

in a retail pharmacy as a pharmacy technician I was told by a recently graduated (PharmD) co-worker that originally the physician would diagnose a condition and then the decision of the proper medication was up to the pharmacist (the patient would take a note bearing the Dx by the MD to the RPh who would then assertain the proper medication and dosage and then dispense same), somewhere along the line the paper with the diagnosis changed to a paper with an order of what exactly to dispense (he said it was basically a power-grab by the MD's). He said that this is ideally how the patient-physician-pharmacist relationship should work but that it is now (at least in the USA) perversed except in some hospital and clinical settings where the RPh will participate (basically at-par) with the MD in decision making of treating the patient. Is this true? Can it be added to the history section of the article if referrenced properly (assuming it is true)? I thought this was kind of interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.76 (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"in some hospital and clinical settings where the RPh will participate (basically at-par) with the MD in decision making of treating the patient. Is this true?" No, not even remotely. Fuzbaby (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)BY MALULEKE SYDNEY FROM DUMELA VILLAGE

'Actually, this is very accurate. But it's by no means all the time. It's most commonly seen in the hospital setting, on a ward where the pharmacist does rounds with the physicians. In these settings, if the pharmacist has established a good professional relationship with the physician, the pharmacist is open to make his recommendations regarding therapy of the patient from his own unique pharmaceutical background. Lots of physicians are starting to realize the useful input from the pharmacist, as our unique perspective can provide solutions that may elude conventional medical-centric care. Also, in some settings, the pharmacist role has been expanded to include nearly absolute and independent monitoring and adjustment of chronic patient conditions (e.g. hemodialysis units where patients return to the hospital 3 times weekly and are scheduled regularly for lab testing). Cdnpharmacist (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Do NOT combine with pharmacist entirely

I see a note that this combination has been proposed. Although a Dispensing Chemist and a Pharmacist is essentially the same thing in the United States, it seems to me that the variation in usage in the different English speaking countries is widespread enough to justify a small article. There should be a note, explaining that the words refer to the same profession, but also discussing the differences in usages and their historic derivation. Although Pharmacist, Chemist, Druggist, and even Apothecary, are currently all used interchangeably in the U.S., this has not been the case throughout history, and may not be the case across the English speaking world where differences in law, licensing, and practice may have brought shades of meaning. Even if all this ground is covered in a single grand article, a stub explaining this should be left, in my view.

I am in favour of the merge from Dispensing chemist. I think a normal redirect will be sufficient if the content is moved here.--Boson 00:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I am also in favour of the merge with Dispensing chemist (as well as Pharmacist prescriber) here. The differences described above can easily be discussed in one article, with normal redirect. Guptan99 (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

my two cents

Every state and province has a licensing body of pharmacists. In my province, it's the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association, but I think the term, Collge of Pharmacists, is more common in both sides of the border. These licensing bodies can grant licenses and produce bylaws and regulations. The use of words like, pharmacist, dispensing chemist, druggist, etc., are regulated by these organizations. Only those who are registered with these organization can call themselves pharmacists. The postnominal, R.Ph., really doesn't have any meaning because if one can call himself a pharmacist, he must be registered. There is no unregistered pharmaist. The use of this postnominal is to identify that the person is a pharmacist. It's pretty much same as using M.D. for medical doctors or R.N. for nurses.


Yea no kidding... have you ever worked in a pharmacy? EVEN IN THE RETAIL setting there are TONS OF TIMES when the pharmacists expertise played out and saved peoples lives... I've seen it happen countless times. So before you bash them, do some real research first.

Besides, they are there for a CHECKS AND BALANCES type of relationship... hence the reason why Physicians can't dispense on a large scale, and pharmacists can't prescribe on a large scale (unless supervised or in some states on the small scale without supervision). Physicians make mistakes all the time... they don't know half of the drugs out there.... they limit their prescribing to habitual uses of medications that seem to work for their patients.... This is all changing due to computers and such, but even still... 2 opinions are better than one... If a pharmacist doesn't think a medication is the best for you, he/she can get it changed to something that they think is better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.81.93 (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacists are there to help. They have to go through a rigorous academic program, and although they might not have to use much of this academic knowledge in retail pharmacy for a majority of the time, they will have the ability to answer questions or clarify answers that doctors may or may not have provided to us, the patients. As in any profession, there exists a spectrum of quality amongst pharmacists.

    • Pharmacists are drug healthcare professionals. Pharmacists in the UK spend a hefty amount of time at university specifically studying drugs. Doctors prescribe, but pharmacists specialise in patient reviews and drug courses. Pharmacists consult with doctors in hospitals and recommend certain drugs to prescribe certain patients. Some pharmacists specialise in certain diseases, giving them knowledge far beyond that of a doctor when it comes to patient care. You're talking about machines dispensing and advising -- why don't machines diagnose too? Conflicting symptoms? The machine could ask a variety of questions to seperate the factors and even take samples (such as saliva) and automatically put that in a box to be posted to a lab where it could be tested and the patient could be contacted regarding the results. In the event of a referral, the computers could cross-reference nearby specialists and refer the patient. What's the main downside of all of this? No professional advise, lack of expertise, and oversimplification of patient care. People who think pharmacists spend their time packing boxes and sticking labels are retarded. Schizmatic 19:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry! I apparently deleted your last comment, but somebody put it back. It was completely unintentional. Since it was the last entry, I suspect a software glitch, though I may have done something wrong.
I deleted the swear words in the tirade above. Not necessary, to say the least.Guptan99 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Pharmacists are trained in the appropriate use of medication for specific patients with specific conditions. When a patient has multiple disease states and multiple physicians it is often only the pharmacist who can recognize drug interactions and therapy duplications. Pharmacists are also educated to recognize the most important counseling points to discuss with patients to maximize their drug therapy based on the patient's specific case, rather than just read aloud computer generated generalized information. Alerting physicians to overlooked drug allergies and improper dosing of drugs is also a role of a pharmacist. Most pharmacy school programs include at least 2 semesters of full-time externship (clinical rotations) in the final year of the curriculum. This is in addition to the intern hours students acquire during the summers and after-school. The salary of a pharmacist is directly related to the cost of education required, the high level of stress and liability, and the shortage of others choosing to take on the role. Pharmacists are professionals. Like other professionals they are entitled to exercise judgement as to what medication they feel is appropriate to dispense. Lawyers and medical doctors have a choice when it comes to what client or patient they want to defend or treat. Pharmacists are also entitled to this choice. Pharmacists could not be replaced with a computer any more than a doctor could be replaced with a computer program that analyzed lab tests and symptoms then used a flow chart to determine the diagnosis and the first line treatment.66.189.233.206 09:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

> patient has multiple disease states and multiple physicians it is often only the pharmacist who can recognize drug interactions and therapy duplications

  • Computers can probably do just as well...

Yes, a computer can probably dispense better than a pharmacist due to lack of human error. Many pharmacists would be happy to give away the drugery of 'label sticking'. Then we can focus on what is important; patient counselling, detecting errors in prescribing, dosing errors, conceptual errors. We can become clinical pharmacists. Bring it on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itemroad2 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC) 

  ---If you think computers can probably do just as well then you are an idiot.  The computer spits out every single drug interaction that can happen in theory or fantasy.  It's up to the pharmacist to sort through the bullshit.

> Alerting physicians to overlooked drug allergies

  • Again computers can probably do it automatically these days

> Most pharmacy school programs include at least 2 semesters of full-time externship (clinical rotations) in the final year of the curriculum. This is in addition to the intern hours students acquire

  • Doing what? Counting pills?

> Pharmacists could not be replaced with a computer any more than a doctor could be replaced with a computer program that analyzed lab tests and symptoms

  • Why not? Doctors obviously can't be replaced (yet...). Pharmacists, on the other hand can be. They just don't want to admit that dispensing machines, where if you insert in your prescription (we'd probably need ID you, but your prescription info might be able to be downloaded automatically), it will automatically fill it out. I believe the technology is here, just there are a lot of people who'd be out of their jobs (and probably a big lobby in capital hill...).

Inconsistency in History section

The section refers to ancient China. However, all historical references linked within the section are examples of Japanese history. If Chinese history was the intent, find more appropriate supporting links. If Japanese history is actually intended, please update. I don't know which is correct, so I'm not changing anything right now. -- Gnoitall (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

restructuring

It seems someone corrected this discrepancy, but the section still only refers to the history in one country (Japan) despite the generic "history" title of the section. I did some re-structuring to better separate those areas which are general/worldwide perspective, from those which are country-specific. I hope someone can provide more contemporary information on this context. Guptan99 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

/* Earnings and Wage */

At the moment, this article had read as very American-centric rather than worldwide. This is substantially discussed on subscription pharmacist-only boards in Australia. It is an Australian point-of-view. The wages stated for USA pharmacists in no way reflect the reality in Australia. It is important for Australians considering pharmacy as a career, or pharmacists considering emigrating to Australia, to have a realistic understanding of wages. The research is being conducted at the moment, as the last pharmacist-wage survey was five years ago. The situation has changed substantially since then due to the large numbers of graduates. I understand the need for referencing, but before the data from the most recent study is made available it is not freely available. Many people enter pharmacy and then leave due to disillusionment with wages and conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itemroad2 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I just tried to add the references and you sent me a nasty message. Please check what is going on before you send unkind messages. The data here is only reflecting the USA, and may mislead people in other countries to believe it is the same in their own country. I was trying to add those references, and you blocked that, as well as sending unkind messages. I have no idea how to send you a message back.

http://www.psa.org.au/site.php?id=121 http://www.pharmacynews.com.au/article/pressure-on-pharmacists-wages-a-global-trend/503997.aspx

http://www.pharmacynews.com.au/article/Hospital-pharmacy-jobs-under-threat/524670.aspx

http://www.pharmacynews.com.au/article/Slow-start-to-pay-race/520873.aspx

http://www.pharmacynews.com.au/article/Employees-suffer-while-employers-cash-in/523053.aspx

http://beta.guild.org.au/uploadedfiles/wa_branch/services_to_members/pharmacists%20wage%20rates%2021.07.05.pdf

http://www.guild.org.au/qld/content.asp?id=1040 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itemroad2 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


restructuring

In any case, the whole section was now limited to American-versus-Australian-centric point of view... I did some re-structuring to better separate those areas which are general/worldwide perspective, from those which are country-specific. I added some more background/references on the issues of wages in other countries (Canada, Tanzania), hope someone can provide more information in other contexts. Guptan99 (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Dispensing chemist into this article

Looking over the dispensing chemist article, I can found little or no reason why it needs to be a separate article. The Dispensing chemist article basically seems to be about the term as a synonym for pharmacist. Currently the term dispensing chemist basically means the same thing as a pharmacist and whatever differences once existed between the terms dispensing chemist and pharmacist can be explained in the section of this article on UK Dispensing chemists/pharmacists. --Cab88 (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am also in favour of the merge with Dispensing chemist -- as well as Pharmacist prescriber -- here. The differences can easily be discussed in one article, with normal redirect. Guptan99 (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
In addition, as discussed on the dispensing chemist's discussion page, that article is now largely a fragmented collection of adverts for UK-based retail chains... I am moving appropriate/original/neutral text either here or to the pharmacy article, and redirecting the professional title here with new section. Guptan99 (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

lick stick and count

It seems to me that citations 1,2 are more advocating than an actual citation of the craft as practiced - at least in the US. Sure, we require degrees, but there's little evidence that in the day to day work that they use it. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A druggist is not a pharmacist

I am afraid that in the English language there has been a transformation of concepts. A druggist or chemist was in history explicitly not a pharmacist. The chemist was the one who invented the medicine (helpfull or not)and the (later) pharmacist was the one who distributed the stuff. He had some knowledge about the stuff, based on analysis, but he did not realy know what it is. You should keep those concepts apart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.80.250.145 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Intro

I deleted '(North American English)' from after the word 'pharmacist' in the first sentence. That's the normal name for a pharmacist in the UK too; 'chemist' is also used sometimes but generally only by people unfamiliar with the medical field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.53.163 (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Consultant pharmacist into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to No Consensus. I initially closed this as "Merge", but then I noticed that a merge proposal tag was never placed on the destination article. Given the absence of discussion here, I think it's clear that this may have prevented interested editors from being aware of the proposal. NukeofEarl (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As with the previous discussion of articles focusing on specific titles of pharmacists, mostly in the UK, it would seem to make sense to include the consultant pharmacist text here under the main pharmacist article, so readers can understand the profession within context. Guptan99 (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

the section about Germany seems to be fictional

with some amazement I read the section about Germany. It seems to be completely invented. There is no such thing as an RPh ("registered pharmacist"), as the article claims. Also, the description of the university study needed is quite misleading. And the claim of a completely unified payment structure is incorrect, too - not only are there more than one trade unions involved, many typical pharmacist jobs are not covered by union tariffs at all.

A pharmacologic study in Germany is a regular 4-year program at a research university. This is then followed by one year of supervised practice. At the end candidates have to pass the Third State Exam (a state administered examination) in order to qualify for "Approbation". Approbation is a state license to work unsupervised in certain medical professions, (physicians, dentists and pharmacists) and it entitles the Licensee to use the job title "Apotheker" (Apothecary) and to own and run a Pharmacy. As I have no English language sources on this, I refrain from being bold for now and fix the article myself - but I urge the regular authors to correct this on their own. Wefa (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't know anything about this subject at all – I only have the article on my watchlist to fix vandalism – so I don't feel comfortable making these changes. However, non-English sources are fine, as long as you note which language they're in (presumably German in this case). Graham87 06:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pharmacist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pharmacist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pharmacist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

UCSF School of Pharmacy Students Proposed Edits (Group of 5 Students)

(Edward): I think we should edit the “Noted people who are/were pharmacists” section into “Notable Pharmacists” Maybe I could add another country to the list, I’m Armenian, I will try to find information about it

(Jacob): Do we want to add a “California” section under “United States.” We can list things that pharmacists are eligible to do in CA like: furnish naloxone, oral contraceptives, smoking cessation, etc.

We can also update the board certification section: According to Dr. MacDougall there is now a board certification in Infectious Disease. This isn’t updated on Wikipedia yet. https://www.bpsweb.org/bps-specialties/infectious-diseases-pharmacy/#1517746745397-c50604ba-9a3115178482693401517850266909

(Carol): Add the details of what an APP (advanced practice pharmacist) is and who, what, when, where, and how one can be an APP. Add license maintenance (CEs, renewals, etc.) Add how many pharmacy schools are in the United States and compare that to how many pharmacy schools are in CA alone. Insert a reference to the Collaborative Practice Agreement.

(Justin): In the “Nature of work” section- Add the type of work pharmacists do outside of the clinical and community pharmacy realm to include industry, managed care, and research roles.

“Pharmacists are often the first point-of-contact for patients with health inquiries. Thus pharmacists have a significant role in assessing medication management in patients, and in referring patients to physicians. These roles may include, but are not limited to:”

(Dana): The sentence at the end of the first paragraph under the “Nature of the work” section describes a collaborative practice agreement between a physician and pharmacist. I suggest the words “collaborative practice agreement” be added to the sentence and this can connect as a clickable hyperlink to direct readers to the separate Collaborative Practice Agreement wikipedia page.

I also suggest changing the “Nature of the work” section to more concisely say “Nature of Work”. Dana89511 (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd be OK with all of these, except adding a California section ... which would imply that we should adda section for each of the fifty states of the United States, which would get rather unwieldy. Graham87 14:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Update* Carol: In efforts to reduce the amount of information based solely on California, I have taken away the proposed edits of: Add license maintenance (CEs, renewals, etc.) Add how many pharmacy schools are in the United States and compare that to how many pharmacy schools are in CA alone. Insert a reference to the Collaborative Practice Agreement. Since the practice of pharmacy is state regulated, it would not make sense to add these for California and leave out the other 49 states. OuCarol (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Reviews

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

I think the additions are completely neutral and add really good info on the Advanced Practice Pharmacist. The new section about Armenia is wonderful. It's always great to hear about the field in other countries and really cool that Edward could add a section about the country his family is from. I'm a bit confused about why the edits that Justin made were removed. I think they added some good scope to the pharmacist role, especially with the addition of a bit about industry.MLauCP133 (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify. Most of the sentences with facts are followed by citations. The cited secondary sources that I checked were all freely available for anyone who wanted to view the source for verification. Woozers93 (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for articles? The edits for the most part are formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. Section are well organized. Punctuation are use correctly.Sherrydadouzi (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism: There are a lot of missing citations in this page. Usually, each sentence to two sentences needs to have a citation. Here are where citations are needed: first section cite last few sentences, scope of practice, roles, education and credentials, specialities, Australia, Canada 1st paragraph, BC, Alberta, Ontario, Germany, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland (add citations throughout paragraph if from same source), Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania (all same source), second paragraph UK, Education and registration- cite after each bullet, last 8 sentences of US Pharm accreditation, US education, geriatrics site the source in specialization, Credentialing, and Vietnam. I know not all may be your info, but if any is it definitely needs all the appropriate citations. Rachaelgordon (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rachaelgordon: Rachael, we did not edit any of those sections but we agree that the citations need to be there - and if there was anything in our sections we will add them! Instead of deleting the sections without references (which we did not contribute to), I will go ahead and add 'citation needed' after every paragraph so that the next person editing this page will have a better idea of where to start. Not sure if you thought we plagiarized stuff though since you started with that - please clarify if you think so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Jierjian (talk • contribs) 20:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? Most information was up to date and sources verifiable. I thought the Advanced Practice Pharmacist section was a great addition. For future consideration, perhaps information can be added about other states that have also passed provider status legislation. I also understand that this might not be a focus point, but the wages and earnings section stuck out as something that could potentially be out of date, especially since the wages listed were from 2010 and there is already a reference that lists 2015 wages. DeniseL20 (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? The whole article can benefit from a thorough review of grammar and sentence structure for this English language version. The section on Advanced Practice Pharmacists in the U.S. can include information on the state of Washington, since that state along with California has been a trailblazer in expanding the role of a pharmacist in patient care. RxHugo (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@RxHugo: We agree with you Hugo, however we didn't really contribute to all the sections. If we saw mistakes, we edited them here and there, but we tried to contribute more bulk than grammatical corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Jierjian (talk • contribs) 20:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Consider changing "Notable pharmacists" to capitalize the P in pharmacist. For the references in the "Advanced Practice Pharmacist" section,make sure citations are placed after the punctation, and to avoid duplicate punctuations. -Jonthanq (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jonthanq: Nope, on Wikipedia headings are in sentence case, not title case, and punctuation goes before references here. Graham87 04:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? For the most part, the article does lend itself to a neutral stance throughout the page, with minor exceptions. First, the statement "ageing but more knowledgeable and demanding populations" in the "Nature of work" subsection makes assumptions on the elderly population. I would avoid categorizing all of the ageing community as demanding. Furthermore, the following sentence includes the phrase, "One of the most important roles", which could be considered subjective in the context of the responsibilities of a pharmacist. Overall though, the page retains a neutral stance.Kevinsamiam (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? For the "Armenia" section, is it okay to include the citation only at the end of the paragraph or after each sentence? It seems like all of the info is from reference 9. Otherwise, all the citations for the information this group added look good and it doesn't seem to be plagiarized. -Jonthanq (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jonthanq: I checked the wikipedia guidelines, they have no preference between citing at the end of each sentence vs at the end of the paragraph, see Wikipedia:citing sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Jierjian (talk • contribs) 20:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Edward Jierjian:: Since you didn't sign your message, your pings wouldn't have worked. Let me redo them: @Rachaelgordon, RxHugo, and Jonthanq: Graham87 03:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Graham87: Sorry about that, thanks for the save! Edward Jierjian (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

UCSF Student Pharmacists CP133 Group 24

Propose to add to the Advanced Practice Pharmacists subsection the following additional responsibilities:

  • Furnishing Oral Contraception
  • Furnishing Tobacco Cessation Aids
  • Furnish prescription travel medications

Source: SB 493 of California, Chapter 469 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB493

--Tmmccann (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Tmmccann


I think we can add it to a separate section talking about different scopes of practice of pharmacists in each state. So that one would pertain to California.

--HwangCP133 (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Propose to add the requirements and trainings that it would take for Pharmacists to become an Advanced Practice Pharmacists including, but limited to:

(1) Hold an active license to practice pharmacy issued pursuant to this chapter that is in good standing. (2) Satisfy any two of the following criteria: (A) Earn certification in a relevant area of practice, including, but not limited to, ambulatory care, critical care, geriatric pharmacy, nuclear pharmacy, nutrition support pharmacy, oncology pharmacy, pediatric pharmacy, pharmacotherapy, or psychiatric pharmacy, from an organization recognized by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education or another entity recognized by the board. Ucsf123 (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Propose to add SEC. 9 Section 4052.8 which lists the necessary requirements and training for Pharmacists to independently initiate and administer various vaccines according to the latest schedule guidelines.

--CTsui (talk) 6:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

CP133 2019 Group 23 Peer Review

Christine:

I believe group 24 is off to a great start with their edits for this article. Information about advanced practice pharmacists is relevant as the scope of practice of pharmacists continues to expand. The edits made reflect the majority of the group's goals, except the last one proposed about requirements for pharmacists to administer vaccines. One concern I have is that section with necessary criteria to qualify for advanced pharmacist licensure contains text that is taken directly from the application. Although the citation is given and regulations or laws may not be copyrighted, I believe copying the direct text might still count as plagiarism. I would suggest summarizing the main ideas about the requirements in your own words, rather than listing the exact criteria from the California Board of Pharmacy. Overall however, I liked that group 24's additions to this article were easy to read, and I believe they will be extremely beneficial to the general public's understanding of the profession of pharmacy. Christinegracielin (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Nancy: Part 1 & 2: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify.

Group 24 has done a great job in further describing the responsibilities of an Advanced Practice Pharmacist. The proposed edits corresponded to the edits made on the Wikipedia page and provided a neutral point of view which helps create credible information. It was mentioned that adding a California section may be beneficial to the page to focus on the scope of pharmacist particularly in California. Although this may better help represent pharmacist responsibilities on California, I believe having to add every state within this Wikipedia page may be slightly excessive, potentially create biases, and take away from the focus of the page which is to have a general overview of the topic. Nevertheless, group 24 has managed to incorporate valuable points on the role of Advanced Practice Pharmacists. Nancy311 (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Jonathan:

Part 1: Group 24 edited the section about advanced practice pharmacist. Overall, I do not see any information that is distractible or irrelevant in this article. However, I believe that they could have added the information about why California established Advanced Practice Pharmacist and how their scope of practice is different from roles of clinical pharmacists. This article does not have any section about clinical pharmacist or hospital pharmacist, so adding the background information about how roles of advanced practice pharmacist would make the reader to understand the topic better. I do not see any claims or frames from the edits. It would be better, if they can find any articles which showed why someone opposed founding advanced practice pharmacist or the article which explained why it is necessary in California to have advanced practice pharmacist. By adding this information with appropriate and reliable sources would help readers to understand significance of advanced practice pharmacist. As an article, I believe that claims made the articles are neutral, but not adding significance of advanced practice pharmacists makes this article more relevant to people in California. The readers might wonder why it would be necessary to have advanced practice pharmacist in their own regions. All the links work and the references do verify the information added by group 24, because they added the link to the actual laws not to articles which interpreted the laws. The law was passed on 10/7/19, so I do not think the information is out of date. If they can find the article about reactions after passing the law will improve the article. Jonathanim918 (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Jonathan Im

Part 2: Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…

I believe that the edits are formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. I do not see any significant grammatical errors. I do not experience any sentence structures that make the readers hard to understand. The edits are concise and clear. However, the edit used someone’s name without explaining the person. The edits mentioned Scott Wiener, but they did not explain who Scott is. Some people in California might be familiar with Scott, but not many people outside of California would know him. Just adding California State Senator in front of his name would be sufficient enough. I also saw some technological terminologies without clear explanation. Unless people are familiar with medicine, they would not be familiar with terms “furnish”, “pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)”, or “post exposure prophylaxis (PEP)”. Adding few words to explain those terms would help the readers to understand those terms. Jonathanim918 (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Jonathan Im


Karina: Part 1: This groups edits improved the article and achieved their proposed edits on the talk page. They were able to provide solid examples for how advance pharmacy practice is expanding to include things like furnishing PrEP, smoking cessation aids, and oral contraceptive. By elaborating on these points, they are able to give an insight into the wide scope of practice an advanced practice pharmacist has. Overall, I believe that they were able to clarify the roles an advanced practice pharmacist has and the qualifications a pharmacist needs to meet in order to practice within the advanced scope. Part 2: Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? The points are verifiable with the added sources. They had two reputable sources from the California Legislature website as well as one source from the immunization action coalition. They were all freely available and easy to access. One concern I have is the source to the immunization action coalition. On the Wiki page, the reference was added to site varying protocols of pharmacist vacation services in different states. The source provided various vaccination resources for pharmacists; however, I was unable to find the protocols for the 50 states. If the intention was to just site the ability for pharmacists to provide vaccination services, perhaps consider re-wording the edit for clarification. Ktanguilig (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

Pharmacists, at their core, are medication experts. Not all pharmacists are actively engaged in providing "education and counseling" or managing "general health issues". Many pharmacists, for example, work in administrative settings. The definition should reflect this diversity, rather than narrowly hone in on a subset, albeit a popular one, within the pharmacist profession. I have therefore reverted the recent changes to the lead section.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 11:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree! Spyder212 (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pharmacist/Archive_1&oldid=1096686126"