41st EDTNA/ERCA International Conference – Evaluation

41st EDTNA/ERCA International Conference – Evaluation Eva Petrova

General information • 186 Evaluation forms collected overall, response rateis 16% (outof 1141 delegates) • Participants from 31 countries have submitted their answers • Evaluation is divided into following parts: • Part I – graphs • Part II – evaluation of the „text“ answers • Overall evaluation Attached to theppt. evaluation report istheoverallgrid: • Some of the answers could not be read properly (highlighted in red) • Many of the questionnaires were incomplete (highlighted in yellow) • Some of the questionnaires („text“ answers) were in Greek and Spanish. Marianna Eleftheroudi and Carlota Hidalgo helped with the translation.

PART I.

200 answers out of 186 questionnaires 1 abstain

183 answers out of 186 questionnaires 3abstain

45 answers out of 186 questionnaires

11. DidyoufindtheCES'sscientificprogrammeinteresting? Which topic was the best learning tool? 1. FMC – Vascularaccess 2. Baxter 3. Shire 4. Gambro Which CES will influence your daily clinical practice? 1. FMC 2. Baxter, Shire

PART II.

15. State the session you enjoyed most Most oftenmentionedsessions: • S 04 - CORPORATE EDUCATION SESSION - FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NEPHROCARE, Sunday, 16 September • Think ahead: Preventing the impact of CentralVenousCathetercomplications, MaurizioGallieni (Italy) • S 12 - CORPORATE EDUCATION SESSION BAXTER, Sunday, 16 September • 12/Sunday/How do I set up a Home HD programme/Frankie O'Kane • S 19 - CORPORATE EDUCATION SESSION SHIRE, Monday, 17 September

16. State the session you enjoyed least Most oftenmentionedsessions: • S 09 - PARALLEL SESSION DIALYSIS ACCESS, Sunday, 16 September • O12 - Nursing care protocol for translumbarandtransthoraciccatheter as haemodialysisvascularaccess, Anna Marti Monros (Spain) • S 23 - PARALLEL SESSION PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF PERITONITIS, Monday, 17 September • O24 - Improvementof peritonitis rates bymeansof CQI techniques, DuyguBalci (Turkey)

17. What topics would you suggest for future conferences? Most often mentionedtopics in the questionnaires: • More in depth PD (APD, CAPO) • Plasmapheperis-Aferesis • Education (patients‘ education for self care) • Fluid balance • Transplantation • Patient care, patients lifestyle • Competence of nurses • Iron therapy, diabetic influence/risk factors • Hypertensis • Vascular approaches • Video demonstrations (e.g. Transplantations) • Technical topics • Topics of management, conservative management, staff education • CVC care • Anemia Management

18. In what ways could this Conference be improved? Most oftenmentionedcomments: • Greektranslationwasmissing • More translationinto Czech • TranslationintoDutch • More professional content, lessstatistics, betterspeakers • Do something against disturbing the presentation • More type of food because there are many vegetarians, better food • More Interactive sessions,withaudience • More PD • Locationoftheposterssessions - verynoise around and it's difficult hear clearly • More space in theexhibition area • Cost reduction for greater participation • I totally disagree that there are activities (boat trip) at the same time that there are oral presentation. It is pathetic that there were less than 25 people in the Erasme Hall. It’s a shame for the speaker and for the Conference.

19. What did you like most or like least about the industry exhibition? + • new monitors, beads, newinstruments, newinventions • Samples to tryout • helpfulness corporate representatives • Fresenius Medical Care • Gambro - • Too crowded, mainly during lunchtime, not enough space • Food • Not goodgifts

20. AnyotherComments/Views Thecommentscanbedividedintofollowingcategories: • Venue and city • ScientificProgramme • Catering • Overall • Other

20. Any other Comments/Views Venue and city + • nice venue • nice city • catering services in the venue inadequate, for volunteers on Saturday from 8:00am - • unclean WC • no seating outside the venue • not enough space for coffee breaks/lunches

20. Any other Comments/Views ScientificProgramme • Czechtranslation in more sessions • More input from patient - the patient perspective. The EDTNA should actively encourage this through engagement with patient organisations across Europe • Toosmall letters in the final programme • CME pts for poster sessions • More interpretations • More people in the sessions • Please allow photographing of screen as long as the flash is off. • To puta short entertainment/ice breaker during the closing ceremony • Somespeakers spoke very poor English, some sessions were very basic • Europe and the EDTNA/ERCA compose several countries, but the programme and speakers are dominated by the UK - it feels more like a British National meeting - to improve/increase the participation from more countries among the speakers! • waive the registration fee for those who are making efforts with the presentation is the minimum. Plus shortennthe conference itself to 2 days and make the programmemore scientific.

20. Any other Comments/Views Overall • professional and good organisation • Enjoyed- good conference • Nice bags Catering • To know choice of food during the Opening ceremony in advance • To have a choice for lunch boxes Other • Disappointment of the conference etiquette from the delegates - noisy, late comers • AGM - why to change the names of the posts: EC chair/LOC director • Exhibition – more informationthengifts • Czech staff at the Czech companies booth - language barrier

OVERALL EVALUATION

Overall evaluation • Most respondents were from Czech Republic, followed by the respondens from Greece and UK. • More than ¾ of the respondents were nurses. • 2/3 of the respondents were EDTNA/ERCA members. • Almost 100% of the delegates, who answered the questions, were satisfied with: • The CD staff • Conference duration • Daily programme schedule • 2/3 of the delegates, who answered the questions • found the EDTNA/ERCA booth helpful • were satisfied with the content of the Scientific Programme and the Conference met their expectations • found the CES‘s sessions interesting • found the posters and oral presentations interesting • Translation: The delegates selected the type of language but didn‘t evaluate the quality of translation. Only few of them evaluated the quality usually within the range 3-5 (good).

Overall evaluation • The conference was overall evaluated very positive, from the organisational side as well as regarding the content and scientific programme. • The most negative comments were on the missing translation, the cleanness of the toilets at the venueandbad qualityofthecoffeebreaks and lunches.

41st EDTNA/ERCA International Conference – Evaluation