Table 3 |
||||||
|
Evaluation of the training |
||||||
|
Not at all |
Very much |
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
||
|
|
||||||
|
1. Did you enjoy the training? |
Practice 1 |
80% |
20% |
|||
|
|
||||||
|
Practice 2 |
11% |
22% |
61% |
6% |
||
|
|
||||||
|
2. Did you like the structure? |
Practice 1 |
80% |
20% |
|||
|
|
||||||
|
Practice 2 |
11% |
28% |
61% |
|||
|
|
||||||
|
3. Did you learn from other members of the practice? |
Practice 1 |
60% |
20% |
|||
|
|
||||||
|
Practice 2 |
6% |
39% |
56% |
|||
|
|
||||||
|
4. Was it appropriate to have all members of the practice at the training? |
Practice 1 |
40% |
60% |
|||
|
|
||||||
|
Practice 2 |
6% |
11% |
39% |
11% |
28% |
|
|
|
||||||
|
5. Was the patient pathway exercise useful? |
Practice 1 |
30% |
70% |
|||
|
|
||||||
|
Practice 2 |
6% |
33% |
44% |
6% |
||
|
|
||||||
|
6. Did you find the video useful? |
Practice 1 |
30% |
20% |
|||
|
|
||||||
|
Practice 2 |
11% |
33% |
33% |
6% |
||
|
|
||||||
|
7. Did you find the role play helpful? |
Practice 1 |
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
Practice 2 |
6% |
22% |
39% |
11% |
||
|
|
||||||
|
Or |
||||||
|
7. Did you find the problem solving sessions helpful? |
Practice 1 |
60% |
30% |
|||
|
|
||||||
|
Practice 2 |
6% |
28% |
39% |
6% |
||
|
|
||||||
|
8. Were the discussions of benefit? |
Practice 1 |
90% |
10% |
|||
|
|
||||||
|
Practice 2 |
6% |
28% |
50% |
11% |
||
|
|
||||||
|
9. How actively involved were you? |
Practice 1 |
10% |
50% |
40% |
||
|
|
||||||
|
Practice 2 |
11% |
39% |
39% |
6% |
||
|
|
||||||
|
10. Would you like to have contributed more? |
Practice 1 |
10% |
20% |
30% |
30% |
|
|
|
||||||
|
Practice 2 |
17% |
28% |
39% |
17% |
||
|
|
||||||
|
11. Do you think your practice will use the PRISMS tool? |
Practice 1 |
10% |
50% |
30% |
||
|
|
||||||
|
Practice 2 |
6% |
44% |
33% |
17% |
||
|
|
||||||
|
12. How likely is it that systems at your practice will change as a result of the training? |
Practice 1 |
10% |
20% |
40% |
20% |
|
|
|
||||||
|
Practice 2 |
6% |
44% |
39% |
6% |
6% |
|
|
|
||||||
|
Kennedy et al. Implementation Science 2010 5:7 doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-7 |
||||||