The Cleveland Clinic
Center for Continuing Education
Participant Course Evaluation FORM
Course: Mellen Center Update on Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Date: Friday, June 11, 2010
Evaluations: 79
Course EValuation / AVG / Excellent(5) / Very Good
(4) / Good
(3) / Fair
(2) / Poor
(1)
Facility conducive to learning / 4.4 / 47 / 19 / 6 / 4 / 1
Content of syllabus / handout material / 4.5 / 50 / 15 / 9 / 1 / 0
Appropriate time for questions / 4.4 / 45 / 20 / 10 / 1 / 0
Length of course for content / 4.5 / 46 / 24 / 5 / 0 / 0
Overall course management / 4.7 / 52 / 23 / 1 / 0 / 0
COURSE OBJECTIVES / MET / NOT MET
Objective 1: Describe important aspects of MS in terms of its symptoms, course, and
epidemiology. / 77 / 0
Objective 2: Recognize the use of disease modifying therapies in MS and the future potential for
oral therapies for this disorder. / 77 / 0
Objective 3: Identify MRI features that are suggestive of MS. / 74 / 1
Objective 4: Communicate the importance of wellness activities in the care MS patients. / 72 / 3
Objective 5: Discuss other disorders that may be confused with MS in clinical practice. / 68 / 2
My Personal Objectives were: 69 - Met 1 - Not Met
How much of this content was new to you?
6 - Almost All
17 - About 75%
31 - About 50%
17 - About 25%
1 - Almost None
As a result of what you have learned in this course, will you change your practice behaviors?
14 - Very likely
30 - Likely
21 - Somewhat Likely
3 - Not at all
If so, please list specific clinical practice behavior’s that you propose to change:
Look forward to using oral meds but also understand the need for close monitoring and counseling of patients
Differential diagnosis; latest therapeutic modalities; appropriate diagnosis and Rx
I do not treat MS patients
Exercise protocol; encourage patients to seek services at Mellen Center
Include focus on wellness
Patient education
Medication selection
Gait intervention
As a therapist, having updated knowledge is something I pass on to my patients; I do a lot of education during my treatment
Better management of wellness and other co-morbidity; better vigilance on gait assessment and management
Increase patient education
As a social worker, impact on practice more in relation to referrals/linking consumers, etc.
Able to explain s/s of MS more
Recommendations for exercise and complementary therapies
Will look at using a greater variety of objective tests for gait
Information relating to new medication therapies will be used to educate patients
Change LR time
Will start following my patients more closely along with neurologists
Continuing to have an open mind and applying other continuously changing data and approach to treating MS patients
Choice of first line treatments
Diagnosis of MS and considering other changes in treatment
Would you recommend this course to your colleagues? 77 - Yes 1 -No
What was the most effective aspect(s) of this activity and why?
Getting the most updated information about MS from experts; this is the greatest way to stay up-to-date
Update on the latest results of clinical trials; makes patient educations easier
MRI review to review findings and changes in MRI findings throughout course of disease
The topics covered were a great overview of current information on MS
Expertise of the speakers
Practice changes in MS monitor
Interactive sessions – easier to stay awake
Educational information
Rehab section and track B sessions
Learned about the disease; it will be helpful in working with MS patients/clients
Track B which dealt with practical applications for managing symptoms of MS
The use of video pertaining to P.T. by Dr. Bethoux
Track B lectures as I work in rehab
Slides; visual aids
Very good set of handouts with Tracks A & B
Good lectures
Case studies
Handout – PowerPoint book to follow along with
One important part was the nutrient information by M. Rensel
Appreciated the MS 101 basics since I knew very little about the disease prior to this seminar
Enjoyed the audience response technology – effective tool for case participation
Learning ways MS is treated today; reasons for stopping certain treatments
Symptom treatment and control related to psychosocial issues
Including presentation for all disciplines providing care for this population
Participated in answering questions in “Jeopardy” like fashion; helps to process what had been presented
For a P.T. assistant, everything but the first 2 speakers – they were a bit over my head at times due to my lack of knowledge in this area of expertise.
The topics
Well organized
Case studies provided gave a good “picture” of MS as well as answers explained
Interactive learning with audience response system
Good speakers
The clinical trials – hope/scope for new treatments
Review of latest oral meds and statins in FDA; loved Marie Namey’s balloons!
New therapeutics
An interactive component was good tool for stream lining multiple answers and provided immediate chart with percentage; keep this format in future conferences
What was the least effective aspect(s) of this activity?
Lack of in-depth literature of cortical atrophy and contribution to symptoms (although the MRI review was excellent)
Room was way too cold in the morning
If social work is to get credit, need to know prior to deadline to withdraw; it was frustrating to find out at the last minute
Emphasis on MRI/radiology
Cold room
New research in new areas
A lot on meds
Basic science review
Many of the questions presented still have no answers
Having patients asking questions about their cases was inappropriate and distracting
The length and technicality of some of the morning presentations made it difficult for some people to follow
What could have made this course better?
The temperature was very cold; hopefully next year that may be better controlled
Warmer room
More on topic of stem cell transplant for MS
Too much meds for P.T.
Warmer facility
Fewer assumptions of prior knowledge
More P.T./O.T. related subjects
Break into groups earlier (physicians vs. others)
Some heat
Better air conditioning management; I froze during speakers’ presentations which was very distracting
How various meds are discussed with patients; patients’ response to getting involved in studies, etc.
Turn thermostat up
Discussion of the glutamate hypothesis of MS
New things – exciting things or interesting spins on old topics
The room temperature was so cold it made it difficult to concentrate
Breakdown of material that would target physicians vs. allied health professionals
More clinical – O.T., P.T., S.T. information; more treatment focus
More small break time
Overall a good course
More time for questions after sessions
With some of the speakers I enjoyed the fact that some of them didn’t read the PowerPoints to me and focused on primary subject; I felt like there were two speakers who just read the PowerPoint and the presentation was very boring to me.
Compared with other CME courses you have attended, how would you rank this course in terms of innovation, content, and topics?
9 - One-of-a-kind
61 - Up-to-date
0 - Little Innovation
0 - Routine
0 - Superficial
Please rate the degree to which this course met the ACCME requirement that CME activities must be free of commercial bias for or against a specific product?
46 - Excellent
16 - Good
2 - Fair
0 - Poor
Please comment on each presentation/presenter:
AVG / Excellent(5) / Very Good
(4) / Good
(3) / Fair
(2) / Poor
(1)
Alex Rae-Grant, MD
MS 101: Basic of MSPractical Value
Content
Delivery
Visual Aids
Free of Commercial Bias / 4.6
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.7 / 51
49
51
46
54 / 19
22
20
22
17 / 4
2
3
6
2 / 0
0
0
0
0 / 0
0
0
0
0
Robert Fox, MD
MS Therapeutics: Present StatusPractical Value
Content
Delivery
Visual Aids
Free of Commercial Bias / 4.3
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.6 / 42
46
47
45
53 / 16
20
22
23
15 / 16
11
7
14
8 / 2
0
1
0
0 / 0
0
0
0
0
Jeffrey Cohen, MD
MS Therapeutics: Where Are We Going?Practical Value
Content
Delivery
Visual Aids
Free of Commercial Bias / 4.1
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.6 / 42
51
41
44
53 / 148
15
23
19
13 / 13
9
10
8
6 / 2
0
1
2
1 / 0
0
0
0
0
Robert Bermel, MD
Complex Cases 1: Management IssuesPractical Value
Content
Delivery
Visual Aids
Free of Commercial Bias / 4.5
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.7 / 47
50
48
46
51 / 17
14
17
17
16 / 6
7
6
7
3 / 1
0
0
0
0 / 0
0
0
1
0
Francois Bethoux, MD
Complex Cases 2: Rehabilitation IssuesPractical Value
Content
Delivery
Visual Aids
Free of Commercial Bias / 4.6
4.7
4.6
4.7
4.7 / 50
50
50
54
53 / 12
14
13
11
11 / 6
5
6
4
5 / 1
0
0
0
0 / 0
0
0
0
0
Please rate the Breakout Sessions you ATTENDED based on content, clarity, relevance and timeliness:
TRACK A / AVG / Excellent / Very Good / Good / Fair / Poor1:00 PM / Case Studies: MS? NOT.
A. Rae-Grant / 4.7 / 16 / 6 / 0 / 0 / 0
1:45 PM / MRI Cases/Neuroradiology Pearls
S. Jones / 4.9 / 19 / 3 / 0 / 0 / 0
2:45 PM / Meet the Professor: Q & A
R. Rudick / 4.5 / 11 / 4 / 2 / 0 / 0
3:30 PM / MRI Research: Where Are We, Where Are We Going?
E. Fisher / 4.3 / 6 / 7 / 0 / 1 / 0
TRACK B / AVG / Excellent / Very Good / Good / Fair / Poor
1:00 PM / Managing Symptoms: Fatigue, Pain & Weird Stuff – J. Hartman / 4.1 / 21 / 20 / 6 / 4 / 0
1:45 PM / Managing Symptoms: Bowel, Bladder & Sex – M. Namey / 4.6 / 36 / 12 / 2 / 1 / 0
2:45 PM / Wellness and MS – M. Rensel / 4.4 / 27 / 16 / 4 / 1 / 0
3:30 PM / Adjustment to the Diagnosis of MS
A. Sullivan / 4.2 / 18 / 15 / 8 / 1 / 0
Additional comments on faculty members:
Dr. Bethoux with examples – very well done
They are experts in their fields
Very informed and current; useful information; practical; appreciate faculty are on hand for questions
It would be helpful if abbreviations are not used as there were words I am not familiar with
All were very easy to understand and presented their portions with enthusiasm
Thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Bermel’s talk – kept my attention throughout
Dr. Bethoux – not enough time
J. Hartman – would have been nice to hear outcomes of case studies included; also a little “dry” in presentation, would occasionally stomp her foot (this is meant as FYI so she can improve her speaking skills); Sullivan’s discussion seemed a little vague
Case presentations were extremely helpful
More in-depth medication section to special/track A area; add a therapist to speak about certain/specific exercise, balance evaluation training; MRI section too general beginning section
Dr. Bethoux is a wonderful speaker; all of the morning speakers were excellent as well; Marie Namey – good job!
Speakers were very knowledgeable; case studies were challenging and offered opportunity for discussion
All were competent
Made an effort to relate to attendees with their presentations
Rae Grant was great
Namey have a lot of practical points
Overall was this activity satisfactorily free from commercial bias? 71 –Yes 0 -No
If No, please explain:
No comments
Suggestions for future:
New ideas for orthopedic patients; course for balance and fall prevention
Parkinson’s management
Environmental triggers for MS (vit. D, viral, etc.)
When to stop medications – due to cost and insurance/healthcare; I think this is something to be addressed; inflammatory vs. neurodegenerative disease process
Cognitive symptoms
Good variety of topics
Parkinson’s disease updates
Medications for co-morbidities that impact MS symptoms both from positive and negative perspectives
MS and depression; MS and cognitive changes: MS and sexual function
How to set up MS center; coordinated care in a diffuse network of services; where do we use enhanced visual test, OCT, visual diversity; value of increased test – MRI, etc?
Needed a quick overview of Natalizumab; wanted to hear about the Trell research
Pharmacology – various therapies and their effects to modify MS progress
Would like to hear more about O.T. interventions with MS – ADLS and IADL’s; also speech therapy focus; education on A.E./DME
MS in other parts of the world compared to USA (diagnosis, treatment, ways of perceiving the disease)
Please comment on the meeting facilities at the InterContinental Hotel & Bank America Conference Center:
Food was excellent
Good
Easy to get to; beautiful facility
Great
Too cold; good room; good food; nice ideas for coffee, snack, etc during the day
Awesome
Too cold
Excellent
Nice facility
Food was very good; service also very good; meeting room was a bit cold
Excellent
Very nice
Excellent facility
Too cold
Cold
Very nice
The room temperature was very cold and became distracting; think about turning the thermostat up
Room was cold
Too cold
Room was cold; good food
Way to cold; throughout the hotel, meeting rooms, hallways, bathrooms
Excellent, except that rooms were too cold
Very nice
Nice, except that it was chilly
Cold enough to do surgery!
Very good
The rooms were cold
Excellent
Room was cold; otherwise fine
Temperature was too cold
Excellent
Excellent, but costly if staying overnight; better rate??? ($199/night)
Clean and good food
Food and service were excellent; room was too cold
Too cold; good food both breakfast and lunch
Too cold in room; excellent lunch; cold coffee by p.m.
Excellent
Cold; but spacious; excellent food and food service
Very good
Good facility
Please indicate below where you stayed as an overnight guest while attending this course:
0 - Meeting Hotel
4 - Family/Friend
51 - Local resident (Didn’t stay as an overnight guest)
2 - Other Hotel: Both at Guest House
If at a hotel other than the meeting hotel, why?
Too expensive
How did you first hear about this course?
13 - CCF Website
17 - Brochure
22 - Email
2 - Postcard
18 - Colleague
5 - Other
My neurologist
MS Profession
Searching google.com for MS course
Co-workers
Past Participation
What was the most important factor that influenced your decision to attend this course?
23 - Speakers
24 - Location
44 - Topics
20 - CME Credit
12 - Cost
2 – Other:
Free to employees
Day of week
Would you like to receive an email notice about new CME courses? 42 - Yes 11 - No
First Name / Email / Primary Specialty / City, StateCelia / / Nursing / Parma, OH
Tina / / Neurology / Toledo, OH
Kit / / LMT / Medina, OH
Timothy / / Internal Medicine / Westlake, OH
Brian / / Physical Therapy / Broadview Heights, OH
Ellen / / Pharmacy / Cleveland, OH
Marilyn / / Research/neurology / Akron, OH
Dennis / / Neurology / Kalamazoo, MI
Richard / / Psychiatry / Cleveland, OH
Margaret / / Neurology / Akron, OH
Jordan / / Psychology / Cleveland, OH
Monica / / Cleveland, OH
Suzanne / / Willoughby, OH
Carol / / Infusion / Dresden, OH
Kim / / Nursing / Lakewood, OH
Alex / / Cleveland, OH
Ahmed / / GP/Neuroscience Research / Dayton, OH
Walter / / Neurology / Baltimore, MD
Allison / / Neurology / Erie, PA
Rebecca / / Neurology / Erie, PA
Peter / / General Medicine / Cleveland, OH
Robert / / Neurology / Cleveland, OH
Deb / / Rehab/PTA/Home Care / Westlake, OH
Matilda / / Social Work / Cleveland Heights, OH
Mark / / P.T./Rehab/Home Care / Independence, OH
Shahin / / O.T. / Cleveland, OH
Barb / / Infusion nursing / Butler, OH
Laura / / Neuropsychology / Akron, OH
Colleen / / Psychiatry/Neuropsychology / Cleveland, OH
Jeannie / / Psy. Dys. Therapy / Mentor, OH
Debra / / Pain management/Surgery / Euclid, OH
Renee / / P.T. / Avon Lake, OH
Ellie / / MSW / Shaker Heights, OH
Lynne / / Neurology / Willoughby Hills, OH
Sue / / PTA/Homecare/Rehab/Ortho / Cleveland, OH
Venkae / / Psychiatry / Massillon, OH
Tracy / / PT (orthopedics) / Kirtland, OH
Rochelle / / Occupational Therapy Asst. / Hudson, OH
Lamees / / Psychology / Cleveland, OH
Patricia / / MS / Uniontown, OH
Sagarka / / Neurology / Westlake, OH
If you have any additional comments about the course that you wish to share, please explain here.
It was a good course worth attending; better knowledge of MS than before attending!
Good course; low cost
If MSW’s weren’t getting full credit, maybe you needed to break out MSW so perhaps they were available in ½ day on after the other
Maybe as part of going green theme, you might reconsider creating a 130 page book and make slides available on a website; since they are being projected during talks we don’t really need a tableside copy!
Very well organized; good to excellent presenters
Steroid use on MS is known to increase glutamate and other neurotoxin levels; a study should be preformed to evaluate whether the degree of steroid use correlates with cortical atrophy
Keep on going
“MS Therapeutics” to be included in one of the tracks rather than the general presentations