Results of the Assessment Attendance 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
Stated objectives of meeting were met
Dialog was useful
I support the efforts being made
Next steps are clear
Meeting was a good use of my time
Average scores on program participant evaluation forms
Advance notice of the meeting
Meeting room accommodations
Advance materials were useful
Advance materials were received with time to review
FLOW OF THE MEETING
Started on time
Clear objectives for the meeting
Agenda followed or appropriately amended
Facilitation was effective
The “right” people were at the meeting
Would you participate in this process again?
Do you see this as a helpful tool and process?
Would you be to lead a follow-up group to address next steps identified today?
Location, food, facilitation, session time/length
Had appropriate people and each gave input
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.
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