Encouraging Best Practice in Residential Aged Care Program: Final Evaluation Report

8.1 - National workshops

Up to Publications

prev pageprev page| TOC |next page

Six workshops were held during the EBPRAC program (three for each round) with workshop participants invited to complete an evaluation form. Five of the workshops involved people from lead organisations and facilities and one (Round 2 orientation workshop) only included members of lead organisations and evaluators. The Round 2 orientation workshop was notable for best meeting the workshop aims and the Round 1 orientation workshop for least meeting the workshop aims Figure 7). This vindicates a decision not to include facility staff in the Round 2 orientation workshop to focus more on the responsibilities of lead organisations and the program evaluators. Although the extent to which the aims were fully met in the subsequent Round 2 workshops declined compared to the orientation workshop the results from these two workshops were not that dissimilar to the results for the equivalent workshops in Round 1 and perhaps reflect the difficulty of achieving workshop aims with a more diverse group of attendees i.e. people from lead organisations and participating facilities rather than just people from lead organisations.

Figure 7 EBPRAC workshops – were the aims met?

The information below is a description of data provided in Figure 7 above.

Percentage of respondents
Attendees were asked if they felt the workshop met its aims.
Round 1
Orientation Workshop Dec 2007 - Partially 70%, Fully 30%
1st Workshop Jul 2008 - Partially 45%, Fully 55%
2nd Workshop Mar 2009 - Partially 42%, Fully 58%
Round 2
Orientation Workshop Dec 2008 - Partially 12%, Fully 88%
1st Workshop May 2009 - Partially 38%, Fully 62%
2nd Workshop Feb 2010 - Partially 42%, Fully 58% Top of page

In Round 1, the understanding of ‘how my project fits with the EBPRAC program’ increased over time (Figure 8). For Round 2, the highest rating occurred at the orientation workshop, with a subsequent decline in understanding of ‘fit’ in the 1st and 2nd workshops, although the results are similar to the equivalent workshops in Round 1. Again, this probably reflects the more diverse group of attendees at the 1st and 2nd workshops, compared to the orientation workshop.

Figure 8 EBPRAC workshops - understanding of ‘fit’ with the program

The information below is a description of data provided in Figure 8 above.

Percentage from the respondents
Attendees were asked if they understood how their project fits in the EBPRAC program.
Round 1
Orientation Workshop Dec 2007 - Partially 30%, Fully 70%
1st Workshop Jul 2008 - Partially 30%, Fully 70%
2nd Workshop Mar 2009 - Partially 10%, Fully 90%
Round 2
Orientation Workshop Dec 2008 - Fully 100%
1st Workshop May 2009 - Partially 25%, Fully 75%
2nd Workshop Feb 2010 - Partially 15%, Fully 85%

Across all six workshops 81% of participants found the workshop facilitators to be ‘very helpful and approachable’ and 18% found the facilitators to be ‘sort of helpful and approachable’, with only one person at one workshop finding the facilitators to be ‘not helpful or approachable at all’. Top of page

The evaluation form included two questions on networking and collaboration at the workshop. Across all six workshops 86% found that ‘networking and collaboration with other members of my project’ was ‘very useful’ and 52% found ‘networking and collaboration with other projects’ was ‘very helpful’. Nobody at any of the workshops thought that networking and collaboration with their own project was not useful and only 1.6% thought that networking and collaboration with other projects was not helpful.

The feedback form sought responses to the question ‘are you leaving this workshop with any new strategies or ideas to improve your project?’ This question was not asked at the last of the Round 1 workshops as it was felt to be inappropriate at that relatively late stage in the project cycle but for the other five workshops a very high percentage (89%) responded that they were leaving the workshop with new strategies and ideas.

The final question on the evaluation form asked whether the workshop had been a worthwhile use of participants’ time. Again, the Round 2 orientation workshop fared best in this regard. Only one person at one workshop thought the workshop was a waste of time, with everyone else finding the workshops to be useful to some degree (Figure 9).

Figure 9 EBPRAC workshops – a worthwhile use of time?

The information below is a description of data provided in Figure 9 above.

Percentage from the respondents
Attendees were asked whether the workshop had been a worthwhile use of participants’ time.
Round 1
Orientation Workshop Dec 2007 - Was somewhat useful 35%, Was a very good use of my time 65%
1st Workshop Jul 2008 - Was somewhat useful 45%, Was a very good use of my time 55%
2nd Workshop Mar 2009 - Was a waste of time 2%, Was somewhat useful 28%, Was a very good use of my time 70%
Round 2
Orientation Workshop Dec 2008 - Was somewhat useful 10%, Was a very good use of my time 90%
1st Workshop May 2009 - Was somewhat useful 30%, Was a very good use of my time 70%
2nd Workshop Feb 2010 - Was somewhat useful 35%, Was a very good use of my time 65%

The evaluation form included open-ended questions about the strengths and weaknesses of the workshops, any new ideas that people were leaving the workshops with and suggestions for future workshops. Responses were very varied but largely support the results summarised above. Networking, interaction and the sharing of ideas were repeatedly raised as strengths of the workshops. Many respondents indicated that having longer workshops would be beneficial. There were many comments, both positive and negative, about various aspects of the way in which the workshops were organised including start/finish times, location of venues, size of venues, and transport to and from venues.

In summary, feedback from those attending the EBPRAC workshops indicated that the workshops largely met the workshop aims, assisted in understanding how individual projects fitted within the program, were a worthwhile use of time and were a useful way of promoting networking and collaboration, particularly between members of the same project.
Top of page

prev pageprev page| TOC |next page