Course Evaluation April 2006
KAROLINSKA INSTITUTET EVALUATION
Medical Management Centre
5 April 2006
EUROPEAN OPHTHALMOLOGY LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
Did the programme meet your needs and expectations?
If yes, tell how. If no, tell why.
” Yes.
” Yes, innovative approach.
” Yes, lots of diverse topics. Extremely well organised.
” Yes, gave me the opportunity to approach some problems with different style.
” Yes, it gave an insight into problems usually not addressed in daily routine-work.
” -
” Yes, everything was very useful for me. Discussions were excellent.
” Yes, I have got good explanations about the topics which were covered by the “home-reading”.
” In 70 % YES, it’s really hard to organise a “leadership programme”. I would rather call it a management programme.
” Yes.
” A detailed and professional overview of leadership and its impact in our activity.
” Yes, I came with an open mind and will take home several key points and issues to think about.
” Yes, both specific and broad.
What did you value most in the programme?
” The efficiency and structure of the talks
” Excellent moderated discussions
” Introduction to ??? law. Social programme.
” The evaluation/analysis of the strategies to lead
” The opportunity to interact
” -
” Discussions.
” The discussions (with and) to the politicians.
” To have the insight of decision making.
” Introduction sections, excellently ???
” Discussions.
” The active interaction between us all.
” Concrete topics, high quality discussions, professionally guided.
What did disappoint you?
” Some of the lectures were very theoretical
” -
” Too much “leadership” talks. Lots of overlap.
” -
” Nothing
” -
” Nothing.
” Non.
” The weather.
” -
” Sincerely nothing.
” The visit to the Diabetes Association.
” First talk by Prof. Busse too long.
Were you satisfied with the balance between lectures and interactive sessions?
” Yes.
” Yes.
” GOOD.
” Yes.
” Yes.
” -
” Yes.
” Yes, I think that was kindly balanced.
” I think at this stage it was enough. (The participants did not know well each other).
” Yes.
” Satisfied.
” Yes.
” Yes.
What would you have preferred done differently?
” More interaction between the speakers and our group
” -
” (Even) more social programme
” -
” -
” -
” Access to the room.
” Non.
” Nothing.
” The programme should be less packed, perhaps.
” More open discussions.
” -
” ?
Did you find the pre-reading useful?
” No. Extremely detailed.
” It is useful.
” Yes
” -
” Yes
” -
” No.
” Yes.
” Yes, many thanks for that.
” Yes.
” Not all suggested papers.
” Of limited use.
” No.
What are your views on the prior information of the module and module arrangements?
” Very informative.
” Very good.
” Good, sufficient
” -
” -
” -
” Very good.
” Good introduction. Helped a lot to understand a little bit different topic and language than what we use in professional communication.
” It was perfect.
” I didn’t have a lot of prior information but I was more than satisfied with the ???
” Information should be more detailed.
” -
” -
Could you rate the usefulness of the different parts of the programme (please tick):
| Item | Usefulness | |||
| 1=not useful | 2=some-what useful | 3=useful | 4=highly | |
| Busse: EU health legislation and policy | 1 | 5 | 7 | |
| Ovretveit, Patient empowerment and consumerism | 2 | 6 | 5 | |
| Gregor, Challenges of leadership | 3 | 4 | 6 | |
| Hawlina, Future leaders | 2 | 7 | 4 | |
| Prause, The professor as leader | 1 | 4 | 7 | |
| Van Rij, Running a department | 2 | 4 | 6 | |
| Carder, Alcon | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| Nilsson, Santen | 2 | 5 | 5 | |
| Norrgren, Allergan | 4 | 6 | 3 | |
| Brommels, Summary of the day | 1 | 1 | 11 | |
| Brommels, Introduction to advocacy | 1 | 12 | ||
| Visit to Diabetes Association | 3 | 8 | 2 | |
| Exercise and discussion with politicians | 1 | 1 | 12 | |
| Philipson, Leadership in the private sector | 6 | 4 | 3 | |
| Brennan, How to influence decision makers | 2 | 6 | 5 | |
| Bermudez Svankvist, Management by love | 5 | 2 | 2 | |
| Visit to SBU | 2 | 7 | 4 | |
| Brommels, Implementing guidelines | 1 | 4 | 8 | |
| Nilsson Bågenholm, Physician leadership | 7 | 3 | ||



