News and Events

CRISH course pilot

CRISH pilot took place 19th-21st July 2017 in Barcelona and gathered 13 students of different stakeholder profiles: 4 clinicians, 4 researchers, 4 patients and 1 research manager. During three days, almost 10 trainers from the different members of the CRISH consortium trained students with skills for co-creation of innovations in healthcare. Out of the course, 4 projects were defined and some of them are currently being developed in depth.

The pilot was evaluated by two of the members of the CRISH consortium: AQUAS and Universitat de Barcelona. The evaluation followed the Kirkpatrick’s model, which evaluates training in four different levels: reaction, impact on learning, impact on individual behavior, and impact on organizational outcomes. In order to perform such evaluation, 4 different stages were followed:

  • Pre-course evaluation: collects the state of knowledge and opinion before students attended to the course.
  • Post-course evaluation: gathers impressions, feelings and learnings of students right after the course finished.
  • Qualitative evaluation: describes opinions drawn by students in a collective discussion session facilitated by evaluators.
  • Impact questionnaire: gathers real impact that the course has had in students behavior and working conditions a month after the course is finished.

The different lessons learnt from this evaluation are defined in the lines below.

 

Lessons from pre-course questionnaire:

  1. There is a real lack of knowledge on concepts such as RRI, Patient Experience and Co-creation.
  2. There is a need to engage more patients, so more effort should be done on this sense.

Lessons from post-course questionnaire and qualitative evaluation:

  1. The relation of theoretical-practical sessions should be rethought, as there is more willing for practical sessions.
  2. For some attendants, specially patients, the course was too much intensive and it should be adapted to less days and less repetitions between sessions.
  3. Some sessions, such as the innovation management, should be redesign to be more in line with the rest of the flow of the course.
  4. Discussions among members of the groups happened in local language, so the course would be much effective when delivered in local languages.
  5. There are some repetitions among sessions that need to be tackled.
  6. Organizers should find a way to improve the engagement of participants as some of them abandon the course in advance.
  7. Organizers should think of better ways of recruiting participants to improve group formation and project assignments.

Lessons from impact evaluation:

  1. Less than half of participants have had the chance to apply co-creation methods learnt during the course. Some online following-up activity can be implemented.
  2. The projects had too little presence during the course. In future editions these projects should be the thread of the sessions.
  3. The course had better impact in researchers and clinicians than in patients. There is an urgent need to better engage patients.
  4. As some sessions were difficult to follow, it is advisable to create a students’ handbook that will help students with the overall thread.

The complete evaluation report can be downloaded here.

This website uses first- and third-party cookies to obtain information on your search habits and to improve the quality of our services and your browsing on our website. To consent to our use of cookies, click OK or continue browsing. More information, ACEPTAR

Aviso de cookies