Talk:History of pharmacy in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Julie.dao, Kyle.merchant, DangNathanCP133, Fmsiddiqui93. Peer reviewers: KuanHsuanWu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of pharmacy in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pharmacy.wsu.edu/History/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of pharmacy in the United States. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hn.bigchalk.com/pqdocs/share4/pqimage/hnirs102v/201402230106/43184/8472/out.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

CP133 2019 Group 11

Group 11 Proposed Edits

[Nathan] The article begins with colonial era and comes to the 19th century. We can add a new heading for 21st century developments and discuss how healthcare reform gave rise to the Affordable Care Act. The physician shortage in the US was believed to grow even further with passage of the ACA, and other healthcare professionals, including pharmacy, were poised to help fill that shortage of care. DangNathanCP133 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

[Julie] With this new subsection, we can also expand on pharmacists' provider status legislation that was first introduced to the House in 2014. I think we can also add information about the national movements that have taken place in support of this legislation to expand pharmacy scope of practice. Julie.dao (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

[Kyle] As an example of of implementations of expanded scope of practice for pharmacists, we can discuss SB493 and the services that are made available. Likely sources for citation could be CA pharmacy lawbook, specific bill text, related legislature for other states, etc.Kyle.merchant (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

[Faria Madeena] To elaborate on the services made available by SB493, we can bring up bills such as AB1114, which is the first bill to authorize payment for pharmacists’ services as providers. Furthermore, we can add information about the details of this bill, including billing codes assigned, time allotted for each service, and what that means for practicing pharmacists. Fmsiddiqui93 (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Started a sandbox page for our new section. Sandbox can be located at DangNathanCP133/History of pharmacy in the United StatesKyle.merchant (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Group 10 Peer Reviews

-Part 1

• The group's edits definitely improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework" especially adding important updates in regards to the provider status (which seems to be the main bulk of their edits). For example, someone added specific billing codes AB1535 for the furbishment of Naloxone, which not only enhanced the credibility for the role of pharmacists but also further expanded the updated their scope of practice. Even though minor, this group also made some grammatical changes and rephrased some sentences to make them sound clearer. However, I would not say that anyone's edits from this Health Policy class would be considered "substantial" as constant editing is a progressive process yet I believe that everyone's contribution is an improvement to some degree.
• The group achieved its overall main goals in 1) update on 21st century development and how healthcare reform gave rise to ACA 2) update in provider status legislation and senate bills. They revamped lots of information into the article without getting "deleted" unlike some of my edits. These clearly suggest that the work this group put it achieved the goals to certain degree. However, a lot of these contributions are specifically from the California State Board of Pharmacy, which might not be as reflective as the federal level or applicable to other states.

-Part 2

• The draft submission definitely reflect a neutral point of view. This is because all the edits being made into this article are fact statements rather than opinion inputs from the authors (despite gearing more towards California Board of Pharmacy SB). In addition, the title of this article is also "History of Pharmacy in the United States," which mainly summarizes the timeline of pharmacy profession by its nature rather than a controversial/ethical topic such as abortion, marijuana, tobacco products, etc in which the edits could potentially provide a biased point of view based on their opinionated interpretations. For example, the authors could subconsciously edited that a particular group supported abortion or opposed abortion, essentially shifting the neutrality of the article. Slaikijrung (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Part 1: I believe that the groups edits have substantially improved the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “guiding framework.” For example, adding a whole new header for the 21st century developments and discussing the impact of the affordable care act. I do believe that the group has achieved its over all goals of improvement by adding the new section for the 21st century improvements which I think is a very important section to add. They also did a good job of choosing thoughtful edits to include that would add value. Part 2: There is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations. The group has summarized everything in their own words but they could include more citations of where they have gotten their information- preferably a secondary source. Overall, I think the group did a good job. Amnaelsayed (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Amna Elsayed

Part 1: I think the edits of the group improve the article. I like it how they keep the bills that related to pharmacist role updated and I also like the changes they have made in the section of the 21 century development like adding on citations or more up to date informations and status. I think they definitely achieve not only their goals of expansion of the scope of pharmacist to this article but also the legislation part. Part 2: I think their edits formatted is consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of syle. They include the cites, they use thier own words and they only put down the informations that are important. KuanHsuanWu (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Part I: 1). This group has made substantial effects to improve the article. They made a new session, “21st century developments.” By doing so they not only updated the big trend (i.e., the shortage of primary care) in the healthcare, but also talked about the role transition of pharmacists. 2). They have achieved their goal for improvement by introducing different new laws that expand pharmacists’ scope of practice, for example, AB1114 under which pharmacists provide naloxone furnishing for opioid overdose, tobacco cessation counselling services and etc. Part 2: Their points are verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available. Many citations are about bill texts from government legislation websites. Others are from reliable resources, such as pharmacy times, pharmacist.com and etc. WeiqingC (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Group 11 Peer Review Response

Thank you to the previous group for evaluating our edits as substantial, particularly for adding an entire new section: “21st century developments, writing in a neutral, objective way, and using the right sources. Regarding the information that discusses California pharmacists specifically, we too debated how to approach writing about this information. Originally, we were going to add a “California” subheading, but that would imply that every state would need its own heading, which would clutter the article. Ultimately, we decided that it would be best to lead with a short summary of efforts at the federal level, then describe specific state-level examples of those efforts, using California as the primary focus [for now]. This allows for information about other states to be added on later in the same paragraph/section. We also agree that there could be a few more sources added to some of the information, particularly in the Provider Status section. We have so far added additional citations from The Sacramento Bee, the CDC, and a peer-reviewed article. DangNathanCP133 (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

What about the 20th Century?

The only info about the 20th century is a couple of B&W photos. Just passing through fixing cite errors (and a little more). -- User-duck (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)