The topic of the study was the need for patient education. This is a complicated procedure that ensures not only the independence of postoperative patients but also the literacy of medication use and compliance with medical prescriptions. Without training, treatment efficiency would be minimal because inexperienced patients’ unprofessional actions could cause undesirable consequences. The author’s interest in this issue stems from a desire to learn more about training theory’s fundamentals and practices. In particular, the limits of the applicability of training to patients and the validity of existing assessments need to be determined. Moreover, there are several questions about the ethics of using training, namely the need to train terminally ill patients in hospice care.
For patients (P) who are hospitalized in the clinic, does the providing educational training (I) compared to patients (C) who do not receive training have any better recovery results (O) for three (T) months?
P– (patient population/patients of interest): patients who are hospitalized in the clinic; I– (Intervention): the providing educational training; C– (Comparison): patients who do not receive training; O– (Measurable outcome): any better recovery results; T– (Time frame in months): three months?
The sources found showed that patient pre-training had a statistically significant effect on recovery outcomes. It was shown that the more practical and understandable the training method used, the more likely the patient was to follow the rules. Moreover, patients who have been trained are more likely to use medications correctly in the future, and thus the risk of unintended consequences associated with inappropriate medication use, schedule irregularities, or overdose is substantially reduced. In addition, it has been shown that training alone can be an effective measure to improve quality of life indicators and reduce stressors. It seems evident that a patient trained in stress management, combined with basic medication guidelines, has a better chance of a smooth and seamless recovery. Nevertheless, education should not be seen as a panacea for disease. On the contrary, while recognizing the absolute responsibility of medicine for surgical interventions and therapies, training only guides the process of physical recovery. For this reason, it is erroneous to expect that training can be an effective strategy for chronic, terminal illnesses. Given the above, it seems logical that the committee should pay special attention to the current problem and make sufficient effort to promote medical information to patients.
References
Anderson, L., Brown, J. P., Clark, A. M., Dalal, H., Rossau, H. K. K., Bridges, C., & Taylor, R. S. (2017). Patient education in the management of coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 1-136.
Faury, S., Koleck, M., Foucaud, J., M’Bailara, K., & Quintard, B. (2017). Patient education interventions for colorectal cancer patients with a stoma: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling, 100(10), 1807-1819.
Gordon, N. P., & Hornbrook, M. C. (2018). Older adults’ readiness to engage with eHealth patient education and self-care resources: A cross-sectional survey. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1), 1-13.
Wendebourg, M. J., Heesen, C., Finlayson, M., Meyer, B., Pöttgen, J., & Köpke, S. (2017). Patient education for people with multiple sclerosis-associated fatigues: a systematic review. PLoS One, 12(3), 1-14.