Skip to content
2019 NNECOS Annual Meeting & Pre Meeting Symposiums Evaluation for CNE
1.
Name:
2.
Credentials
3.
Practice/Organization
4.
Email:
QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION:
(if multiple presenters, evaluate the following for each speaker/presenter individually)
5.
Ronald Maggiore, MD – Palliative Keynote
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
6.
Sarah Kagan, PhD - Beyond Frailty
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
MODELS OF DELIVERY PANEL
7.
Andrew Hertler, MD
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
8.
Matthew M. Wilson, MD
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
9.
Stephen Rust, MD, FACP, FAAHPM
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
10.
Lauren Michalakes, MD - Models of Delivery & Project ECHO
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
11.
Joan Ingram, MPH - Project ECHO
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
NAVIGATION & FINANCIAL ADVOCACY SYMPOSIUM
12.
Tricia Strusowski, RN, MS - Keynote Value-Based Cancer Care
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
13.
Tracey F. Weisberg, MD
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
14.
Torie Lavoie
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
15.
Nicole Messier BSN, RN, OCN, ONN-CG
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
16.
Aysha Sheikh, RN, MPH
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
ANNUAL MEETING BEGINS HERE
17.
Steve Grubbs, MD - Plenary Politics, Policy and Quality
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
CONCURRENT SESSIONS
18.
John M. Hill, Jr., MD - CAR Talk
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
19.
Sarah Kagan PhD, RN - Reconsidering Cancer Survivorship in our Aged Society
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
20.
Susan C. Gilchrist, MD, MS - Cardiac Rehab
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
ONCOLOGY REHAB PLENARY
21.
Kim L. Dittus, MD, PhD - Exercise Rehab
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
22.
G. Stephen Morris, PT, PhD, FACSM - Exercise Rehab
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
PLENARY SESSION
23.
Harold D. Miller, MS - Better Care for Cancer Patients at Lower Cost
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
SATURDAY
24.
Paul J. Hesketh, MD, FASCO - Grunberg Memorial Keynote
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
CONCURRENT SESSIONS
25.
Barbara L. Jones, PhD - Re-Imagining Life with Cancer
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
26.
Linton T. Evans, MD - Innovative Techniquies in Neurosurgical Oncology
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
CONCURRENT SESSIONS
27.
Deborah L. Ornstein, MD, MS - Venous Thromboembolism and Cancer
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Survivorship Issues: Implications of Head & Neck Cancer Treatment Panel
28.
Philip Schaner, MD
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
29.
Elise Cushman RD, LD
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
30.
Michelle Coogan, RN
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
31.
Christina M. Mimikos, DO
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
32.
Zoe Kennedy, MA, CCC-SLP
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
ABSTRACT PODIUM PRESENTATIONS
33.
Heather Wright, MD
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
34.
Whitney Hammond, MD
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
35.
Allison Smith, MD, MPH
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
36.
Timothy J. Fitzgerald, MD - Lunch Lecture: Evidence-based Multi-disciplinary Management of Pancreatic Cancer
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Organization and clarity of content
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Effectiveness of teaching methods
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
LEARNING OUTCOMES:
(if multiple outcomes, evaluate the following for each outcome individually)
As a result of this activity, I was/will be able to.
PALLIATIVE CARE SYMPOSIUM
37.
Identify and support opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration and communication in the care of the older cancer patient
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
38.
Apply knowledge in assessment/treatment older adults with cancer in the context of competing health issues/other serious illnesses
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
39.
Identify opportunities for application of tele-health strategies to optimize cancer care, education and collaboration in rural states
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
NAVIGATION & ADVOCACY SYMPOSIUM
40.
Apply knowledge of the impact and value of cancer navigation and financial advocacy on patient outcomes through validated metrics/measures.
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
41.
Describe clinical implications of food insecurity, lack of transportation, and access to medications on patients in rural communities
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
42.
Define the role of the nurse in health care legislation advocacy as it relates to the provision of and payment of oncologic care
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
ANNUAL MEETING
43.
Apply knowledge of social, emotional, spiritual and practical needs of oncology patients along transitions of care throughout the cancer trajectory and support an interdisciplinary team approach to care, including supportive and palliative care
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
44.
Apply knowledge of optimal interventions and improved outcomes through application of oncology rehabilitation
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
45.
Discuss benefits of exercise-based Oncology Rehabilitation for cancer survivors
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
46.
List benefits of prehab/rehab and importance of exercise in the care of cancer patients
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
47.
Apply knowledge of role of molecular testing in the care of oncology patients with NSC lung cancer and treatment implications
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
48.
Apply strategies to identify/eliminate ageism in healthcare and achieve age friendly care
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
49.
Discuss optimal prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
50.
Describe alternative payment models in oncology and strategies to maintain practice viability
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
51.
Discuss adjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
52.
List evidence-based protocols for pancreatic cancer
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
53.
Were the presentation(s) free from commercial bias?
Yes
No
If no, please explain:
54.
As a result of this activity, please share at least one action you will take to change your professional practice/ performance:
ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS:
55.
Please check the administrative arrangements as satisfactory or unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Promotional information provided adequate information
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Registration process was efficient
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Scheduling of the activity met my needs
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
56.
General comments about the program:
57.
Suggestions for future program topics:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
58.
What topics/changes would you recommend to make this activity a more meaningful educational experience?
59.
Please make suggestions for future meetings:
60.
What is the most important benefit that NNECOS provides you?
61.
Please tell us one activity/goal that you would like NNECOS to pursue:
Thank you for participating! We hope to see you at a future meeting.
