Results of Spring Evaluation

Published on July 16th, 2014
Public
Results from SHFNF Evaluation of Spring Meeting (14 responses) Questions highlighted results from the following question and rating.

Rate the following sessions:

1: Update on inherited cardiac conditions 2. Ultra-filtration 3. Workshop 1: Communication challenges 4. Workshop 2: Psychological issues in CHF 5. The face of tele-health 6. Update: Arrhythmias 7. COSMIC
Session Not relevant Useful for learning but not relevant to practice Relevant to learning & practice Highly relevant to learning & practice
1 2 8 4
2 9 4 1
3 2 2 3
4 6 5
5 5 6 2
6 1 4 8
7 1 7 6

What do you think of the following in terms of the event?

Area Poor Average Good Very good
Venue 6 5 3
Catering 3 6 5
Location 4 7 3
Parking 5 3 4 2

Comments:

  • Communication workshop was good but didnt learn anything about how to communicate. But i think this was due to lack of time.
  • A very enjoyable day
  • If non heart failure specialists are to be invited then the program needs to reflect that in relevance of topics covered. Lack of seating at lunchtime made it difficult to enjoy lunch.
  • SPEAKERS - great range of speakers, really liked all talks and it was nice to have a balance between professional speakers and commercial speakers.
  • WORKSHOP - I attended the "Communication Challenges in Palliative Care" workshop. It was very good and very interesting but it didn't quite hit the brief. The workshop discussed challenges in PC but didn't focus on communication challenges. I really wanted to learn more about communication challenges and techniques on how to overcome these communication challenges. The workshop was very generic and I was hoping for something more specific, more inkeeping with the title of the workshop. However, in saying that it was still very good, very interesting and very much worthwhile - just not what I was expecting. REP
  • STANDS - good mix of drug reps and equipment reps, I think they would have received more footfall if they were in the same room as the refreshments but I appreciate space was limited.
  • SCHEDULE OF THE DAY - Start and end times were spot-on for those who had a fair distance to travel. Location of Perth was great, very central. The actual venue itself was good but not great. It felt quite cramped and people ended up wandering off into other rooms so I felt that networking was a little limited due to the spread of people over multiple rooms during refreshment breaks/lunchtime. The breakout room for the workshop I attended (comm challenges in PC) was not the best layout for group work and the projector equipment didn't work very well thus was difficult to read. I liked the variation of: speakers then workshop then speakers - it really helped to break up the day and gave you a chance to interact rather than just sitting in lectures all day.
  • OVERALL - overall it was a great day, very well organisied and super balance of speakers, workshops, reps. On the whole the majority of minor negative aspects were linked to the facilities and layout of the venue which is not under control of the organisers so please don't feel like it is a criticism - just some genuine feedback!

Suggestions for future speakers/winter meeting:

Perhaps someone from the Scottish Patient Safety Promgramme who could talk us through some improvement methodologies like PDSA cycles, run charts, change management strategies etc?? Or perhaps someone from the Knowledge Network who could demonstrate how we could use that resource to its full capacity e.g. shared spaces, accessing journals, zetoc alerts, availability of RefWorks/CLEAR/Advanced Nursing Practice Toolkit, linking into SHELCAT, etc. Or perhaps someone to speak to us about what we can do to support carers - carers' rights to a carer assessment, benefits, signpo