Results of the Assessment

click to enlarge - Essential Service numbersAttendance

There were 57 individuals who participated in the L-SIP assessment.

Results of the Assessment

  • Final Results of the L-SIP Assessment
  • L-SIP Participant Evaluation Summary
  • Essential Public Health Service Scoring Matrix
    (All 10 Essential Public Health Service items)

Essential Service items listed individually: Links to Theme Taker Notes from Each Session

Laboratory System Improvement Program Participant Evaluation Form

We appreciate your feedback and take your suggestions seriously. Thank you!

Please rate your responses on a 5 point scale by placing an “x” in the applicable cell. Add comments at the conclusion of each section.

UTILITY OF THE MEETING

Poor

Good

Superb

1

2

3

4

5

Stated objectives of meeting were met

4.5

Dialog was useful

4.5

I support the efforts being made

4.8

Next steps are clear

3.9

Meeting was a good use of my time

 

4.6

Average scores on program participant evaluation forms

MEETING ARRANGEMENTS

Poor

Good

Superb

1

2

3

4

5

Advance notice of the meeting

4.3

Meeting room accommodations

4.5

Advance materials were useful

3.8

Advance materials were received with time to review

4.0

FLOW OF THE MEETING

Poor

Good

Superb

1

2

3

4

5

Started on time

4.8

Clear objectives for the meeting

4.3

Agenda followed or appropriately amended

4.6

Facilitation was effective

4.6

The “right” people were at the meeting

4.3

NEXT STEPS

YES

NO

Would you participate in this process again?

100%

Do you see this as a helpful tool and process?

100%

Would you be to lead a follow-up group to address next steps identified today?

50%

50%

WHAT WORKED?

Location, food, facilitation, session time/length

Had appropriate people and each gave input

Followed agenda

Facilitators did a good job leading discussions - stayed on topic and on time

Interactive process and good dialog with stakeholders

Stakeholders from various backgrounds sharing their experiences

Great job in exposing deficiencies/areas for improvement

Good discussions. Really learned a lot. Thanks for inviting me to participate.

Non-punitive discussions

Interesting and lively discussions from subject matter experts in each group

Materials were easy to follow – sufficient time to go over everything

WHAT COULD BE IMPROVED?

Have IT representative in each breakout group

Some policy issues addressed were not in the prevue of the laboratory system

Participation from some areas (clinics) were not present in each group

Some discussions were geared toward Public Health staff only and not partners

The “Laboratory System” concept was confusing, wish it was more specific to lab

More time for discussions

One meeting room was a little small for group of 16 people

Explanation of scoring system and how numbers were generated at end of day

Increase attendance by hospital and clinical lab personnel

Provide more information ahead of time i.e. tool document to all participants

Provide materials in digital format to participants