Identifying Qualifying Patients Per Programs On C

Identifying Qualifying Patients Per Programs On C

Identifying Qualifying Patients Per Programs On C

The purpose of this study was to identify the effects on specific health markers for patients post-MI who received eight weeks of personal education on cardiovascular health for about two hours a week. After identifying qualifying patients per specific diagnosis based on type of cardiovascular incident, the sample size was separated into two groups. The intervention group received the eight-week education by nonmedical personal and gave no medical advice other than healthy lifestyle guidance. They also always had a cardiologist available for support in medical advice and assistance, but it was not part of the educational program. The control group still received care as usual and regular guidance with follow-up visits and basic education after clinical admission. Markers that were measured before and after interventions were LDLs, systolic blood pressure, BMI, and HbA1c. In order to get a quality measure on the effects of treatment, the team collected results after twelve months on both groups of patients. Both groups at the beginning measurements averaged closely on all metrics. After the study, the intervention group improved on LDLs, BMI, and SBP. There were improvements in both groups for average HbA1c.

Although this is not a large study, the simplicity of the evidence is useful in supporting the practice of outpatient education programs in cardiovascular patients. The strength of this study is shown in the fact that the results match well with the purpose of the study. There is a clear understanding of improvement in metrics. With that being said, although there were improvements, they were rather small. As a researcher, I believe to make this study more persuasive there could be an element of proving that these small changes in metrics make a significant impact on patients overall cardiovascular risk. The LDL improvements were the largest of all metrics, with a difference of 16 mm HG. The difference in systolic blood pressure were about 2 mm Hg and BMI only 1-point difference. The question remains, with a larger sample size, would we see larger improvements or even closer results comparatively.

Giannopoulos, G., Karageorgiou, S., Vrachatis, D., Kousta, M., Tsoukala, S., Letsas, K., Siasos, G., & Deftereos, S. (2020). Usefulness of a Structured Adult Education Program in Modifying Markers of Cardiovascular Risk After Acute Myocardial Infarction. The American Journal of Cardiology, 125(6), 845–850. https://doi-org.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.12.033