Training and Development, Research Paper Example

Importance of Training and Development in Healthcare

Healthcare is as old as the human race. Even some primates practice some form of it on each other. However, throughout much of the history of human society, there were no rigorous systems of training needed to practice healthcare. There was no discipline of practice. Instead, treating the sick and injured was done through intuition, superstition, and the pursuit of riches. This pattern held true both in hands-on methods and the creation of medicines. Probably one of the first historical signs of civilization was the development of specialists who began systematic studies of both the human body and the many plants that were used or might be used in therapeutic ways. Their history extends to the ancient empires of the Tigris and Euphrates. There, archeologists have unearthed one of the first surgical tools: a brass catheter. In the New World, long before its discovery by Europeans, trepanning drills were used. We may safely assume that some kind of training was required before these tools were employed on patients. These who earned the right to do so and charge for it were the first professionals.

In this short paper I will focus on contemporary healthcare needs, and how the growth of what we think of today as modern medicine is dependent on, and a product of, systematic training, development, and monitoring of academic and professional competencies.

The Basics

At its most fundamental level, healthcare education and training are needed to overcome the natural human tendency to rely on instinct and intuition when confront by a disease or injury. In order to accomplish this as a professional-in-training, the first decision a student must make is what general field to train in. The opportunities of course range very widely, from dentistry to nursing to physical therapy to medical doctor; and narrowly to sub-specialties within those major disciplines. Having made the basic decisions, the student must begin learning the many details of long-established procedures. This involves a great deal of rote memorization and practical work, bolstered by solid theoretical understanding. It is necessary to know what to do, why it is being done, how to do it, and when. These parameters hold true no matter what the specialty, and no matter what level the treatment, from primary downwards, brain surgeon to dental assistant.

Measuring Competencies

A student’s basic training is considered complete only upon the successful demonstration of professional knowledge and clinical skills — both theory and practice. From there the student must decide whether or not to immediately get a job commensurate with that level of training, or to pursue the next academic and professional skill-set. No matter which decision is made, both core and advanced competencies will be periodically re-evaluated. This is necessary for essentially three reasons.

First, in day-to-day practice, it is natural for people to gradually but informally specialize. They do this both for reasons of both efficiency and by being attracted to opportunities and problems they have a natural talent exploiting. In other words, people will, over time, forget many of the things they spent a lot of time learning if they don’t re-familiarize themselves.

Second, people don’t stay in one place. They travel, moving from clinic to hospital, city to countryside, state to state, nation to nation, and continent to continent. They may be (or become) multilingual as well. It is essential that there be universal standards, procedures and routines understood and followed by everyone in the field around the world. In sum, modern professional healthcare can’t become Balkanized by local influences (International, n.d.).

Third, without ongoing competency-standards, there would be no objective measures of progress. Without such measures, there would be no objective way of promoting practitioners to higher pay-levels, and no way of determining their fitness for further professional advancement. Instead, promotions would be based on subjective evaluations. There is enough of that as it is. Objective standards are needed, and they must be formally funded (United States, 2011).

Tracking and Evaluating Training Effectiveness

There are basically four kinds of tracking and evaluating methodologies (testing for short). They can be found in all areas of healthcare, from administration to technical support. Very broadly, they are ongoing, promotional, proactive, and reactive. Ongoing testing is essentially for maintenance purposes. This is the kind I have briefly alluded to above — the kind of standard exams routinely scheduled, allowing students and working professionals time to prepare. These should  contain few if any surprises (except when the test-takers learn how much they have forgotten). Promotional testing is exactly what it says it is: for promotion into a higher pay scale, or to be rated eligible for further study. This would necessarily include someone already working but who is also enrolled in academic courses in their field. Their academic and practical testing would be promotional in effect. Proactive testing is administered in advance of an anticipated change in clinical or administrative mission, or related factors. A classic example would be specialized training given as a result a new disaster- or war/terrorism-preparedness program. A more recent instance is the certification for Electronic Health Records specialist (NIST, 2011). Reactive testing is the kind given after something has gone wrong. This may be limited to a refresher course in basic knowledge, or it may be a testing and training regimen tailored to rectify and prevent the specific errors and lapses that caused the original failure. Such programs may be restricted to specific individuals, or encompass entire departments or networks.

The lessons of history mandate that training and education and their systematic monitoring be integral to healthcare itself. Ensuring that they are is the essence of the profession.

References

International Association of Medical Colleges. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.iaomc.org/index.htm

NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2011). Test Method for Health Information Technology. Retrieved from http://healthcare.nist.gov/use_testing/

United States Department of Labor. (2011). Health Care Initiatives. Retrieved from http://www.doleta.gov/BRG/IndProf/Health.cfm