Evaluation Report: 10 Years Tsunami

Evaluation Report: 10 Years Tsunami Phuket, “The Next Tsunami Zero Lost”
Participants of the 10 Years Tsunami Phuket, “The Next Tsunami Zero Lost” conference, which took place 10 and 11 December 2014, filled out evaluation forms that reflected their experience. The evaluation forms recorded the participants’ position, thoughts on the speakers and presentations, lessons learned, if the information could be used in practice, and any suggestions participants may have for the future.
Doctors and nurses were the two largest groups among participants. Others included trainees, researchers and IT professionals.
The evaluation forms reflected an overall excellent/good experience from participants. Participants also had the option to indicate specific speakers to evaluate, which many did. Because of this, there is feedback related to different people. If no speakers were identified, it can be assumed they were judging the conference overall. It is good to have feedback on different speakers, but in the future it may be better to have the evaluation forms more uniform so there is a bigger pool of data to analyze.
Part three of the evaluation form was general information that asked the participants’ opinion on: the appropriateness of the lecture, accessibility of the facility, and overall rating of the symposium. As in part two, responses were overwhelmingly positive.
Part four addresses the participants before and after knowledge of the topics covered, but there seems to be an error in the evaluation sheets creation. Most evaluation forms have an incomplete statement that reads, “Before the symposium,” with nothing following it. Other evaluation forms incorrectly read as, “Before the symposium, I’ve ever known about Colorectal Disease.” It appears to be a cut and paste error.
Judging by the responses, people answered as though it questioned them about their knowledge related to emergency medicine before the symposium, and if they learned anything new from attending. Most participants indicated that attending did provide useful/new information.
Part five indicated whether or not the information from the symposium could be applied to practice, and a majority of participants indicated that it could.
Participants had the option to highlight parts of the meeting that were particularly good, bad and provide any additional comments. Negative comments included scheduling issues that did not allow time for presenters to address the audience for a question and answer session. The participant indicated that 10 minutes should be left for questions and answers.
Other negative comments included: unhappiness due to some presentations not being in English, no presentations on Phuket specifically, and that speakers did not represent a large variety of specializations.
A good part of the meeting was the presentation on DMAT, which two participants specifically mentioned in the comments section, and the presentations by Mr. Adachi and Mr. Kai were also noteworthy.
Interesting comments from the survey include the suggestion of having more media present to convey the messages learned in the symposium to the general public, including the implementation of disaster preparedness plans. Also, the same person suggested that Thailand should implement DHEAT teams after implementing DMAT teams as Japan has, in order to alleviate losses during disaster situations.
Overall, the responses were positive and participants were generally happy with the symposium. Despite a majority of the audience being medical professionals, they still indicated that they learned something from the symposium, which reflects its overall usefulness as a meeting. In the future, more attention should be paid to the evaluation forms themselves to make them more uniform and without error.

Results (English) 3:

评估报告：10年海啸的普吉岛，“下一个海啸零损失”
参与者10年海啸的普吉岛，“下一个海啸零损失”会议上，发生了10和11，十二月2014，填写评估表，反映了他们的经验。评价的形式记录参与者的地位，在扬声器和演示的想法，经验教训，如果信息可用于实践，任何建议的参与者可能有未来。
医生和护士最大的两组参与者之间。其他包括受训者，研究人员和IT专业人士。
评价形式体现整体的优良经验的参与者。与会者也有选项来指定特定的人来评价，许多做。正因为如此，有不同的人相关的反馈。如果没有人进行鉴定，可以假定他们判断会议整体。对不同的人的反馈是好的，但在未来可能会有更好的评价方式更加均匀，所以有更多的数据来分析。
三部分是评价表的一般信息，要求参与者的意见：该讲座的适当性，设施的可达性，及会议的总体评价。在第二部分，反应是非常积极的。
四地址的参与者之前和之后的知识所涵盖的主题，但似乎在评估表创建一个错误。大多数的评价形式有一个不完整的陈述，说，“在研讨会上，“没有跟随它。其他评价形式错误地读，“在研讨会上，我曾经对结直肠疾病称。“这似乎是一个剪切和粘贴错误。
从反应，人们说好像询问他们知识相关的急诊医学研讨会之前，如果他们学到了新的东西来。大多数受访者表示，参加并提供有用的新信息。
五部分表示是否从研讨会的信息可以应用于实践，和大多数与会者表示，它可以。
参与者选择突出部分的会议是特别好的，坏的和提供任何额外的评论。负面的评论包括调度问题，不允许时间主持人地址观众问答。参与者表示，应在10分钟内把问题和答案。
其他负面的评论包括：由于一些演示不在英国不幸，普吉岛特别没有演示，而且扬声器并不代表各种专业。
会议的很大一部分是DMAT表示，这两个参与者特别提到在评论部分，由安达先生和启先生的演讲也值得关注。
从调查有趣的评论包括有更多的媒体来传达给公众座谈会获悉的消息的建议，包括备灾计划实施。也，同一个人建议，泰国应实施欺骗了团队实施DMAT队日本后，为了缓解在灾难情况下的损失。
整体，反应积极的参与者一般快乐与研讨会。尽管大多数观众被医疗专业人士，他们还表示，他们从研讨会的东西，这反映了其整体作为一个会议。在未来，更要注意评价形式本身使他们更加均匀、无误。