| name | patient-education-explainer |
| description | Explain a condition, a scan result, or why movement helps, in language that reduces fear instead of adding to it — the reframe, the honest uncertainty, and the analogy that does not accidentally frighten. Use when asked to explain a diagnosis to a patient, explain scan findings, reassure someone who is afraid to move, or write patient-facing education material. Produces the explanation in plain language, the reframe of frightening terminology, the honest uncertainty statement, the what-you-can-do section, and a teach-back check. A communication framework for a licensed clinician; the clinical content is theirs. |
| homepage | https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/patient-education-explainer.html |
| metadata | {"openclaw":{"emoji":"🧠"}} |
Patient Education Explainer
'Degeneration', 'wear and tear', 'bulging disc', 'bone on bone' — a patient hears structural doom and stops moving, and the stopping does more harm than the finding. This writes the explanation that lands differently: what the words actually mean, what the finding does and does not predict, what is genuinely uncertain, and what they can do — without overclaiming reassurance the evidence does not support.
What This Skill Produces
- The plain-language explanation — what the condition or finding actually is, without jargon or euphemism
- The reframe — what frightening terminology means in context, and how common the finding is in people without symptoms
- Honest uncertainty — what is not known, stated plainly, because false certainty collapses the moment it is contradicted
- What you can do — the agency section, which is what changes behaviour
- What would change things — the specific signs that warrant review, so vigilance has a boundary
- A teach-back check — the questions that reveal whether the reframe actually landed
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- What the patient has been told — and by whom, since you may be contradicting a trusted source
- The finding or condition — what needs explaining, including any imaging report wording
- What they believe it means — their interpretation, which is what you are actually addressing
- What they are afraid of — usually more specific than 'my back'; often a person they know, or an outcome they picture
- The clinical position — what the treating clinician's actual assessment and advice are
Framework: Name the Fear, Reframe the Word, Give Back Agency
- Ask what they think it means first. You cannot correct an interpretation you have not heard, and it is rarely the one you assumed.
- Take the frightening word head-on. Do not avoid 'degeneration' — explain it. Avoidance confirms that it is as bad as they feared.
- Use base rates where they genuinely apply. How common the finding is in people the same age without symptoms is often the single most useful sentence available.
- Do not overclaim. 'Your scan is completely normal' when it is not destroys everything else you say. Accurate reassurance survives; convenient reassurance does not.
- Choose analogies carefully. 'Wear and tear' and 'crumbling' frighten. Analogies of adaptation — skin thickening where it is used, tissue responding to load — carry the right implication.
- State the uncertainty. Patients handle 'we do not know exactly why, and that is common' far better than a confident answer that later fails.
- End with agency and a boundary. What they can do, and what specifically would warrant coming back. Vigilance without a boundary becomes hypervigilance.
Output Format
Patient explanation: [condition/finding] · [patient] · [clinician]
What they have been told: [and by whom] · What they think it means: [their words] · What they are afraid of: [specific]
The explanation
[What it actually is, in plain language — no jargon, no euphemism, two or three sentences]
The word that is frightening them: [term]
[What it actually means] · [how common it is in people of similar age without symptoms, where that is genuinely established] · [what it does and does not predict]
What we do not know
[stated plainly, and normalised — uncertainty is common and is not the same as danger]
What you can do
[the specific actions, framed as agency rather than instruction] · [what to expect as it changes] · [how long that usually takes]
Come back if: [the specific, bounded signs]
Teach-back
- "How would you explain this to your partner?" → [what they said]
- "What are you going to do differently this week?" → [what they said]
A communication framework for a licensed clinician. All clinical content — the diagnosis, the interpretation of any finding, the prognosis, and the advice — is the treating clinician's, and must be accurate for the individual patient. Do not use base-rate or prognostic statements that are not established for the specific finding and population.
Quality Checks
Anti-Patterns
- Avoiding the scary word. Confirms that it is unspeakable and therefore terrible.
- Overclaiming reassurance. One contradiction and every other thing you said is discarded.
- 'Wear and tear' as an analogy. Implies a finite, spending-down structure and reliably increases fear.
- Hiding uncertainty. Patients cope with 'we do not know' better than with confident answers that fail.
- Explaining without asking what they believe. You correct the wrong misconception.
- No return criteria. Reassurance without a boundary becomes constant self-monitoring.
- Contradicting another clinician bluntly. Explain the finding; do not make the patient adjudicate between professionals.
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Explain a disc bulge to a patient who is terrified"
- "How do I explain scan findings without frightening them?"
- "Patient was told they have bone on bone — what do I say?"
- "Write patient education about why movement helps"
- "How do I reassure someone honestly when I am not certain?"
