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:
- There is a real lack of knowledge on concepts such as RRI, Patient Experience and Co-creation.
- 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:
- The relation of theoretical-practical sessions should be rethought, as there is more willing for practical sessions.
- For some attendants, specially patients, the course was too much intensive and it should be adapted to less days and less repetitions between sessions.
- Some sessions, such as the innovation management, should be redesign to be more in line with the rest of the flow of the course.
- Discussions among members of the groups happened in local language, so the course would be much effective when delivered in local languages.
- There are some repetitions among sessions that need to be tackled.
- Organizers should find a way to improve the engagement of participants as some of them abandon the course in advance.
- Organizers should think of better ways of recruiting participants to improve group formation and project assignments.
Lessons from impact evaluation:
- 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.
- The projects had too little presence during the course. In future editions these projects should be the thread of the sessions.
- The course had better impact in researchers and clinicians than in patients. There is an urgent need to better engage patients.
- 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.