Final Assessment

The ACOG District II 2013 Annual Meeting provides the opportunity to facilitate the professional development of women’s health care professionals by offering a scientific program designed to provide comprehensive clinical skills-based education.

District II’s mission is to provide its members with the latest skills, knowledge, and resources to offer the highest quality health care for women.

Over the past three days, participants have engaged in an interactive program that included:

* Ample case studies
* Group and panel discussions
* Compelling presentations from distinguished faculty across the country

Please complete this Final Assessment to help inform future programming.

* 1. Yvonne Thornton, MD, MPH, FACOG, FACS

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 2. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 3. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 4. Scott Hayworth, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 5. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 6. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 7. James N. Martin, Jr., MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 8. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 9. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 10. Mark S. Defrancesco, MD, MBA, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 11. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 12. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 13. Mary E. D'Alton, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 14. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 15. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 16. John P. Keats, MD, CPE, FACOG, FACPE

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 17. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 18. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 19. Cynthia Chazotte, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 20. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 21. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 22. Ronald T. Burkman, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 23. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 24. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 25. Jason D. Wright, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 26. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 27. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 28. Mark I. Evans, MD, FACOG, FACMG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 29. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 30. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 31. Susan Klugman, MD, FACOG, FACMG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 32. Disclosed whether or not a relationship with industry exists

* 33. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 34. Noah D. Kauff, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 35. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 36. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 37. Angela G. Arnold, MS, CGC

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 38. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 39. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 40. Robert A. Soslow, MD

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 41. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 42. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 43. Laura MacIsaac, MD, MPH, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 44. Disclsoed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 45. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 46. Anthony T. DiBenedetto, MD, FACS

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 47. Disclsoed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 48. Would you like to hear this speaker again

* 49. Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 50. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 51. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 52. Kunle Odunsi, MD, PhD

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 53. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 54. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 55. Haywood L. Brown, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 56. Disclsoed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 57. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 58. Yitzchak M. Binik, PhD

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 59. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 60. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 61. Linda Bradley, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 62. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 63. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 64. Nicholas Kulbida, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 65. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 66. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 67. Joanne Stone, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 68. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 69. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 70. James Goldberg, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 71. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 72. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 73. Cynthia Gymafi-Bannerman, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 74. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 75. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 76. Angela Bianco, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 77. Disclosed whether or not relationship wtih industry exists

* 78. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 79. Richard L. Berkowitz, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 80. Disclosed whether ot not relationship with industry exists

* 81. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 82. Elliott K. Main, MD, FACOG

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 83. Disclosed whether or not relationship with faculty exists

* 84. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 85. "Ask the Experts" Panel Discussion

  1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (excellent)
Was understandable (speed, diction, volume)
Kept within time limits
Made no inappropriate remarks
Appeared not to have a commercial bias

* 86. Disclosed whether or not relationship with industry exists

* 87. Would you like to hear this speaker again?

* 88. This program was:

* 89. The entire program...

  1 (strongly disagree) 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree)
Was well-organized
Was consistent with course objectives
Allowed sufficient time for discussion
Adhered to printed meeting schedule
Meeting facilities were conducive to learning

* 90. Final program grade (5 = best score)

* 91. The hotel facilities

  1 (very dissatisfied) 2 3 4 5 (very satisfied)
How satisfied were you with this facility?