CONFERENCE EVALUATION FORMS RESULTS

1. CONFERENCEEVALUATION FORMSRESULTS by Eva Petrova, Martin Valter

2. CONFERENCE EVALUATION FORMS RESULTS • 610 Evaluation forms collected overall • Participants from 40 countries have submitted their answers • Evaluation is divided into following parts: • Part I – graphs • Part II – evaluation of the „text“ answers • Overall evaluation • Recommendations • Some of the answers could not be read properly • Some of the questionnairs („text“ answers) were in Greek (approx. 39 questionnaires). Marianna Eleftheroudi will help with the translation and she will deliver the summary by the end of this week. However in my opinion it will not influence the overal evaluation. • Answers with rating 1-5 were not clear in the form (no scale identified), so the data might be misjudged during evaluation

3. PART I.

4. 1. Which country do you come from? • Malta 1 • Marocco 1 • Norway 4 • Poland 17 • Portugal 2 • Romania 10 • Russia 5 • Serbia 1 • Slovakia 2 • Slovenia 48 • South Africa 3 • Spain 11 • Sweden 1 • Switzerland 3 • Thailand 6 • The Netherlands 6 • Tunisia 1 • Turkey 3 • UAE 2 • UK 14 • Australia 9 • Austria 2 • Belgium 29 • Bosna and Hercegovina 3 • Canada 1 • Croatia 19 • Cyprus 3 • Czech Republic 7 • Denmark 7 • Estonia 9 • France 3 • Germany 12 • Greece 91 • Ireland 7 • Israel 14 • Italy 39 • Kenya 2 • Latvia 17 • Lithuania 1 • Macedonia 1

6. 3. Where you satisified with the translation? This question is difficult to evaluate due to following reasons: • Many respondents answered to all languages: either „YES“ or „NO“. • With „NO“ answer we cannot evaluate if it means they didn‘t need the translation at all or they weren‘t satisfied with any of the translated languages. • Many respondents didn‘t answer to this question at all Comments: • Slovenian language was missing – however 33 responses were positive, no negative • Few delegates pointed out that the Turkish and Serbian translation were missing at the Conference

12. 601 answers out of 610 questionnaires

18. PART II.

19. 15. State the session you enjoyed most? • Some respondents answered with the example given (Diabetes Abstracts, Monday) what could indicate that they didn‘t understand the question due to insufficient language knowledge or understanding of the question. • However there were still many respondents who answered correctly and the results are following: • Absolutely most enjoyed session and most enjoyed speach: S24 CES Fresenius Medical Care: Magnesium in dialysis – foe or friend? James Heaf (DK)

20. 15. State the session you enjoyed most? • Other enjoyed sessions in the order as given: • S28 Greek workshop • S07 CES Fresenius Medical Care • S22 Optimising Vascular Access Management • S10 CES Gambro • S15 CES Diaverum • S18 CES Baxter, S08 Patient and Carer Involvement • S09 Psychosocial Workshop • S25 Transplantation • 34 Caring for the Diabetic Patient with CKD • S27 DOPPS Session • S21 Improving PD and Health, S03 Acute Therapies HD/HDF • S26 Kinetic Modelling Master Class, S23 Iron Master Class, S11 Conservative Care

21. 15. State the session you enjoyed most? • Other enjoyed speaches/abstracts: • Potassium control in CKD: Can we do better? – Jean-Louis Bouchet (F) • O38 Diabetes education and its impact on quality of life on diabetic peritoneal dialysis patients - Sevcan Unsun (TR) • O45 Safer haemodialysis treatment for patients and nurses – Alina Ungurenau (RO) • O17 Live and let laugh: Laughter yoga during hemodialysis treatment – Riki Dahan (IL) • Reading the signs : Always be a step ahead of the complications – Sabina Frumen (Sl) • The unbearable tick tack, tick tack: The experience of being 30-45 years and depending on haemodialysis treatment – Carolin Herlin (S) • Speaches of Tony Goavaerts (BE)

22. 16. State the session you liked least? • It is hard to evaluate this question as many respondents answered the same session/abstract as in the previous question or as the example given (Oral Posters, Tuesday) • Due to this fact it is not clear if the respondents understood the question and really filled in the session/abstract they didn‘t like • However few observations were made: • Many respondents answered they were satisfied with the scientifc programme overall • Many respondents were not satified with the oral posters presentations

23. 16. State the session you liked least? • Most often mentioned sessions/abstracts: • S15 CES Diaverum and „The good, the bad and the unbearable: Dialysis life issues experienced by patients receiving haemodialysis - Jan Cowperthwaite (UK) • S10 CES Gambro • S27 DOPPS Session • S28 Greek workshop

24. 17. What topics would you suggest for future conferences? • For proper evaluation of this question the knowledge of the renal field is needed. • The answers were copied out into a separate file for your own review. (see the attached file)

25. 18. In what ways could this Conference be improved? • The comments can be divided into following categories: • Translation • Scientific Programme • Venue • Catering • General

26. 18. In what ways could this Conference be improved? • Translation • Translation into more languages is requested • Turkish, Russian, Italian translation was missing • Translation of the non-enlgish sessions into English • Translation of oral presentations into English • Translation of more sessions into Greek • Scientific Progamme • More time for discussions and questions, more talking shows • More discussion groups and more workshops • Better speaker, better level of English and spellcheck of the presentations is highly recommended • More headphones • Not presenting the old things, more new research • Better set up of the sessions to switch between them

27. 18. In what ways could this Conference be improved? • Venue • More space in the exhibition area • More chairs • Better air-conditioned rooms • Microphones were too low • Catering • More and better food • More drinks, not enough water systems

28. 18. In what ways could this Conference be improved? • General • Noisy auidience • Noise from the headphones • Better logistics- ques for the certificates • Internet • Too much influenced by industry • Expensive registration fee

29. 19. What did you like most or like least about the industry exhibition? • Most • Industry booths: • FMC • Gambro • Baxter • Roche • Diaverum • General: • New products and dialysis machines • Professionalism and friendly staff • Not to much „hard sell“ but informative

30. 19. What did you like most or like least about the industry exhibition? • Least • Industry booths: • Diaverum • Gambro • Redsense • General: • Lack of space, crowded reception • Not interesting for nurses working in pre-dialysis • Not lof of exhibitors • Not enough interactions

31. 20. Any other Comments/Views? • The delegates commented usually the same issues as in previous questions. • In general they didn‘t have any negative comments as they were very satisfied with the conference.

32. 20. Any other Comments/Views? • The most often mentioned comments were following: • „Roaming" microphones and clip on microphone for speakers • Italian, Croation translation was missing • Too long presenations, boring speakers • Lack of food at „Welcome coctail“ • Difficult to hear speakers presenting their posters during oral posters sessions – too laudly • The venue was not friendly to disabled people • Not to organise the EDTNA/ERCA Conference during the Jewish holidays • More information to the delegates e.g.award presentation, certificate to be picked up at the end for optimal credit points. • Poor quality of lunch boxes • Low budget conference – but Slovenia is very expensive • To be organised in Africa next time • Less industry involvement • Controlling the sessions by chairs more effectively (no flashes by taking pictures, no talks, no mobile phones) • Poster presentation to be in time for coffee break

33. OVERALL EVALUATION

34. Overall evaluation • Most respondents were from Greece followed by respondents from Slovenia and Italy • More than 2/3 of the respondents were nurses. • The delegates who answered the questions were almost 100% satisfied with: • The staff • EDTNA/ERCA booth • Conference duration • Conference session lengh • Daily programme schedule • 2/3 respondents were very much satisfied (excellent, very good) with the Scientific Conference Programme and it met their expectaitions very much.

35. Overall evaluation • Altough there were quite negative comments related to the posters in the „text“ answers, 2/3 answers evaluated the posters and poster presentations very positively (excellent, very good) • The overall satisfaction with the speakers as well as with the Conference comparing with other international events was also very high (even through negative comments in „text“ answers). • Best session: S24 CES Fresenius Medical Care: Magnesium in dialysis – foe or friend? James Heaf (DK) followed by the Greek workshop • Worst session/speach: Poster sessions, S15 CES Diaverum and „The good, the bad and the unbearable: Dialysis life issues experienced by patients receiving haemodialysis - Jan Cowperthwaite (UK) • Improvements: Catering (Opening cermony), Translation into more languages, better English level of the speakers, more discussions

36. RECOMMENDATIONS

37. Recommendations • To ask the respondents to fill in the questionnaires with capital letters, some questionnaires were unreadable. • Indentify the rating scale 1-5 , what is best/worst • Not to formulate too open questions. It is better giving options for ticking and than space for „other comments“.

38. Recommendations • Be more precise in formulating the questions • Formulate as easy questions as possible so the respondents can answer in easy and prompt way • Not to use one question for asking two items. e.g. Where you satisfied with the translation? It is automatically assumed that the respondent needed the translation during the Conference. It‘s better to ask step by step. 1. step: to ask if they needed the translation 2. step: into which language they needed the translation 3. step: Satisfaction with the translation of the concrete language