WGEA Regional Meeting - 2010
GME Focus Session Evaluation
GME Focus Session - Sunday, April 25, 7:00-8:00 pm
Patient Safety, Quality Improvement and Education**
Moderator: Sandrijn van Schaik, MD, PhD, University of California, San Francisco
Joseph York, MD, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California
John Q. Young, MD, MPP, University of California, San Francisco
Arpana R. Vidyarthi, MD, University of California, San Francisco
1
Very Poor
0
0%
2
Poor
0
0%
3
Fair
2
14%
N
14
Mean
4.4
SD
0.7
4
Good
5
36%
5
Excellent
7
50%
Comments:
1. Would have liked some time for questions.
2. Outstanding presentations. Amazed how far the field has come. Arpana was great!
3. Very relevant to the changing environment of duty hours and new (relatively) GME competencies.
4. Excellent format and content from the presenters.
5. I was surprised at the newness of this topic in GME. It should start early in education of health professionals.
6. Well organized – 3 speakers, 3 topics – good questions. Appreciated positive focus of this meeting.
**Note: An additional evaluation form was used for the GME session. See results below.
GME Special Session Evaluation
19 Evaluations Submitted
The objectives of the session were clear.
1
2
3
Strongly
Disagree
Neither
Disagree
Agree or
Disagree
0
1
0
0%
5%
0%
N
19
Mean
4.5
4
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
7
37%
11
58%
SD
0.8
The session gave me a good overview of the work done in this area.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Agree or
Agree
Disagree
0
0
1
9
7
0%
0%
6%
53%
41%
N
17
Mean
4.3
SD
0.8
The session has given me ideas for research / curriculum development.
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Agree or
Agree
Disagree
0
1
2
9
7
0%
5%
11%
47%
37%
N
19
Mean
4.2
SD
0.8
The session fostered creation of collaborations.
1
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Disagree
Agree or
Disagree
1
0
6
1
9%
0%
55%
9%
N
11
Mean
3.5
5
Strongly
Agree
3
27%
SD
1.2
What could we do differently to improve our GME session next year?
1. I thought the session was very valuable and recommend you continue it next year and possibly tie it to the
workshops.
2. Last talk was a little longer. I think a more open focus would be best to allow more participation from the
audience.
3. This was an excellent session. I’d suggest having it an an earlier in the day time, right after dinner was a
difficult time to get people to sit down.
4. Good topic- maybe more diversity of institutions on the panel. A challenging time of day and in competition
with posters. Would be more generative at a better time, I think.
5. Much shorter presentations to allow discussion. Also, speakers were addressing topics at a very basic level,
bordering on condescending. Time arrangement of session was poor- it’s not a good idea to hold questions
until the end of the session.
6. Time management of the session. Maybe a little more focus – a lot of territory covered.
7. More examples of case studies in patient safety.
8. A little more time for questions.
9. Do this again!
10. More time for discussion!
11. F/U 1 hour on model program ideas presented at plenary but at different tables.
Any suggestions for a future GME focus topic?
1. Service vs Learning Commitment – where is the balance? More specific discussion on the “shift” mentality.
How is Continuity Clinic impacted?
2. Residents as educators. Fostering scholarship and research in residency.
3. Resident well-being. Innovative models of residency programs. Patient-centered medical home.
4. Like further exploration of automomy, probably need a discussion on benchmarks.
5. I would like a session on how to put together a quality improvement program.
6. Web-based teaching and any evidence to say that web based teaching improves patient care and quality
improvements.
7. Nice! Needs assessment to see what would be of interest.
8. Do as good a job next year!