EACCME® participant’s evaluation form


* 1. Contact Details

Quality of the event

* 2. How useful for your professional activity did you find this event?

* 3. What was your overall impression of this event?

  Excellent Good Fairly good Poor Very poor

* 4. What was the best aspect of this event?

* 5. What was the worst aspect of this event?

Relevance of the event

* 6. Did the event fulfil your educational goals and expected learning outcomes?

* 7. Was the presented information well balanced and consistently supported by a valid scientific evidence base?

* 8. How useful to you personally was each session?

  Extremely useful Useful Fairly useful Not useful Undecided
Pre Symposium Work Shop - Antibiotic Prophylaxis - Invite Only
The future is here: from teixobactim & lugdunin to S. aureus immunotherapy
Antibiotic Symposium:
The Role of Old and New Antibiotics For Treating Endocarditis caused by Gram-positive pathogens
Workshop: The Management of Prosthetic Vascular Graft Infections (PVGI)
101 on Top Ten Publications in IE and BSI
ISC Sponsored Joint Symposium on BSI and Endocarditis Blood Stream Infections in the immunocompromised host
Symposium on Infectious Diseases in Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Panel Discussion - Fascinating Failure or Surprising Success? Two cases of IE
ESCMID-EuropeanStudy Group (ESGIAI) and ISCVID joint symposium
Workshop: Towards an international consensus - Mycobacterium chimera 
ESGIAI sponsored symposium. Title: “Prevention of Infective Endocarditis: Should we focus on the source or substrate?"
Endocarditis From Unique Regions
Suitability of formats used during the event

* 9. Was there adequate time available for discussions, questions & answers and learner engagement?

Ways the event affects clinical practice

* 10. Will the information you learnt be implemented in your practice?

Commercial bias

* 11. Did all the faculty members provide their potential conflict of interest declaration with the sponsor(s) as a second slide of their presentation?

* 12. Do you agree that the information was overall free of commercial and other bias?