St. John’s University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences PROGRAM EVALUATION FORM

Step 1 of 3

CE Seminar *

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Overall program	Overall program Excellent	Overall program Good	Overall program Fair	Overall program Poor
Program organization and format	Program organization and format Excellent	Program organization and format Good	Program organization and format Fair	Program organization and format Poor
Relevance to personal needs	Relevance to personal needs Excellent	Relevance to personal needs Good	Relevance to personal needs Fair	Relevance to personal needs Poor
Overall knowledge of topics presented	Overall knowledge of topics presented Excellent	Overall knowledge of topics presented Good	Overall knowledge of topics presented Fair	Overall knowledge of topics presented Poor
Overall quality of speakers’ presentation	Overall quality of speakers’ presentation Excellent	Overall quality of speakers’ presentation Good	Overall quality of speakers’ presentation Fair	Overall quality of speakers’ presentation Poor
Dr. Vincent Tao	Dr. Vincent Tao Excellent	Dr. Vincent Tao Good	Dr. Vincent Tao Fair	Dr. Vincent Tao Poor
Dr. Ali Jalani	Dr. Ali Jalani Excellent	Dr. Ali Jalani Good	Dr. Ali Jalani Fair	Dr. Ali Jalani Poor
Dr. Ghania Naeem	Dr. Ghania Naeem Excellent	Dr. Ghania Naeem Good	Dr. Ghania Naeem Fair	Dr. Ghania Naeem Poor
Dr. Fawad Piracha	Dr. Fawad Piracha Excellent	Dr. Fawad Piracha Good	Dr. Fawad Piracha Fair	Dr. Fawad Piracha Poor
Dr. Elena Mercedes-Rico	Dr. Elena Mercedes-Rico Excellent	Dr. Elena Mercedes-Rico Good	Dr. Elena Mercedes-Rico Fair	Dr. Elena Mercedes-Rico Poor
Dr. Samad Tirmizi	Dr. Samad Tirmizi Excellent	Dr. Samad Tirmizi Good	Dr. Samad Tirmizi Fair	Dr. Samad Tirmizi Poor
Value of discussion time	Value of discussion time Excellent	Value of discussion time Good	Value of discussion time Fair	Value of discussion time Poor
Course materials distributed	Course materials distributed Excellent	Course materials distributed Good	Course materials distributed Fair	Course materials distributed Poor
Physical facilities	Physical facilities Excellent	Physical facilities Good	Physical facilities Fair	Physical facilities Poor
Refreshments	Refreshments Excellent	Refreshments Good	Refreshments Fair	Refreshments Poor
Scheduled date and time	Scheduled date and time Excellent	Scheduled date and time Good	Scheduled date and time Fair	Scheduled date and time Poor

Additional Comments

Using the same scale as above, please indicate how well the following program learning objectives were met:

Management of Tumor Lysis Syndrome in Pediatric Oncology Patients *

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Review the pathophysiology of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS)	Review the pathophysiology of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) Excellent	Review the pathophysiology of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) Good	Review the pathophysiology of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) Fair	Review the pathophysiology of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) Poor
Identify the risk factors and types of pediatric cancers that are at high risk for TLS	Identify the risk factors and types of pediatric cancers that are at high risk for TLS Excellent	Identify the risk factors and types of pediatric cancers that are at high risk for TLS Good	Identify the risk factors and types of pediatric cancers that are at high risk for TLS Fair	Identify the risk factors and types of pediatric cancers that are at high risk for TLS Poor
Discuss the management of TLS using both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions	Discuss the management of TLS using both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions Excellent	Discuss the management of TLS using both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions Good	Discuss the management of TLS using both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions Fair	Discuss the management of TLS using both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions Poor

What is deprescribing and the role of pharmacists in deprescribing *

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Explain what deprescribing is and its relevance in pharmacy	Explain what deprescribing is and its relevance in pharmacy Excellent	Explain what deprescribing is and its relevance in pharmacy Good	Explain what deprescribing is and its relevance in pharmacy Fair	Explain what deprescribing is and its relevance in pharmacy Poor
Review patients at high risk for inappropriate prescribing and medications	Review patients at high risk for inappropriate prescribing and medications Excellent	Review patients at high risk for inappropriate prescribing and medications Good	Review patients at high risk for inappropriate prescribing and medications Fair	Review patients at high risk for inappropriate prescribing and medications Poor
Barriers and Facilitators to deprescribing	Barriers and Facilitators to deprescribing Excellent	Barriers and Facilitators to deprescribing Good	Barriers and Facilitators to deprescribing Fair	Barriers and Facilitators to deprescribing Poor
Explore tools and strategies for deprescribing	Explore tools and strategies for deprescribing Excellent	Explore tools and strategies for deprescribing Good	Explore tools and strategies for deprescribing Fair	Explore tools and strategies for deprescribing Poor
Role of pharmacists in deprescribing	Role of pharmacists in deprescribing Excellent	Role of pharmacists in deprescribing Good	Role of pharmacists in deprescribing Fair	Role of pharmacists in deprescribing Poor

Follow Your Heart... and the 2022 Updated Heart Failure Guidelines *

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Discuss the background information and previous guideline recommendations for heart failure (HF).	Discuss the background information and previous guideline recommendations for heart failure (HF). Excellent	Discuss the background information and previous guideline recommendations for heart failure (HF). Good	Discuss the background information and previous guideline recommendations for heart failure (HF). Fair	Discuss the background information and previous guideline recommendations for heart failure (HF). Poor
Evaluate the efficacy and tolerability data of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in HF management from published clinical trials	Evaluate the efficacy and tolerability data of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in HF management from published clinical trials Excellent	Evaluate the efficacy and tolerability data of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in HF management from published clinical trials Good	Evaluate the efficacy and tolerability data of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in HF management from published clinical trials Fair	Evaluate the efficacy and tolerability data of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in HF management from published clinical trials Poor
Evaluate the 2022 updated HF classifications based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and the corresponding treatment strategies.	Evaluate the 2022 updated HF classifications based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and the corresponding treatment strategies. Excellent	Evaluate the 2022 updated HF classifications based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and the corresponding treatment strategies. Good	Evaluate the 2022 updated HF classifications based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and the corresponding treatment strategies. Fair	Evaluate the 2022 updated HF classifications based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and the corresponding treatment strategies. Poor
Summarize the key similarities and differences between the previous guideline recommendations and the 2022 updated guideline recommendations.	Summarize the key similarities and differences between the previous guideline recommendations and the 2022 updated guideline recommendations. Excellent	Summarize the key similarities and differences between the previous guideline recommendations and the 2022 updated guideline recommendations. Good	Summarize the key similarities and differences between the previous guideline recommendations and the 2022 updated guideline recommendations. Fair	Summarize the key similarities and differences between the previous guideline recommendations and the 2022 updated guideline recommendations. Poor
Apply evidence-based literature findings to make recommendations for patient care	Apply evidence-based literature findings to make recommendations for patient care Excellent	Apply evidence-based literature findings to make recommendations for patient care Good	Apply evidence-based literature findings to make recommendations for patient care Fair	Apply evidence-based literature findings to make recommendations for patient care Poor

Understanding Immunoglobulin Therapy *

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Provide an overview of indications for immunoglobulin therapy	Provide an overview of indications for immunoglobulin therapy Excellent	Provide an overview of indications for immunoglobulin therapy Good	Provide an overview of indications for immunoglobulin therapy Fair	Provide an overview of indications for immunoglobulin therapy Poor
Discuss the manufacturing and purification of immunoglobulin	Discuss the manufacturing and purification of immunoglobulin Excellent	Discuss the manufacturing and purification of immunoglobulin Good	Discuss the manufacturing and purification of immunoglobulin Fair	Discuss the manufacturing and purification of immunoglobulin Poor
Compare intravenous versus subcutaneous administration	Compare intravenous versus subcutaneous administration Excellent	Compare intravenous versus subcutaneous administration Good	Compare intravenous versus subcutaneous administration Fair	Compare intravenous versus subcutaneous administration Poor
Explain the dosing of immunoglobulin	Explain the dosing of immunoglobulin Excellent	Explain the dosing of immunoglobulin Good	Explain the dosing of immunoglobulin Fair	Explain the dosing of immunoglobulin Poor
Discuss the relationship between dose, level, and efficacy	Discuss the relationship between dose, level, and efficacy Excellent	Discuss the relationship between dose, level, and efficacy Good	Discuss the relationship between dose, level, and efficacy Fair	Discuss the relationship between dose, level, and efficacy Poor
Explain immunoglobulin therapy for immunomodulation	Explain immunoglobulin therapy for immunomodulation Excellent	Explain immunoglobulin therapy for immunomodulation Good	Explain immunoglobulin therapy for immunomodulation Fair	Explain immunoglobulin therapy for immunomodulation Poor

Asthma *

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Explain trends in asthma prevalence, morbidity and mortality	Explain trends in asthma prevalence, morbidity and mortality Excellent	Explain trends in asthma prevalence, morbidity and mortality Good	Explain trends in asthma prevalence, morbidity and mortality Fair	Explain trends in asthma prevalence, morbidity and mortality Poor
Discuss the strategy for asthma treatment	Discuss the strategy for asthma treatment Excellent	Discuss the strategy for asthma treatment Good	Discuss the strategy for asthma treatment Fair	Discuss the strategy for asthma treatment Poor
Review the 2022 Updates from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA)	Review the 2022 Updates from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Excellent	Review the 2022 Updates from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Good	Review the 2022 Updates from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Fair	Review the 2022 Updates from the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Poor
Describe Role of Pharmacist in Asthma Education and Management	Describe Role of Pharmacist in Asthma Education and Management Excellent	Describe Role of Pharmacist in Asthma Education and Management Good	Describe Role of Pharmacist in Asthma Education and Management Fair	Describe Role of Pharmacist in Asthma Education and Management Poor

Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening and mt-sDNA *

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Recognize the paradigm of colorectal cancer burden reduction	Recognize the paradigm of colorectal cancer burden reduction Excellent	Recognize the paradigm of colorectal cancer burden reduction Good	Recognize the paradigm of colorectal cancer burden reduction Fair	Recognize the paradigm of colorectal cancer burden reduction Poor
Explain the mt-sDNA Test and its clinical Performance	Explain the mt-sDNA Test and its clinical Performance Excellent	Explain the mt-sDNA Test and its clinical Performance Good	Explain the mt-sDNA Test and its clinical Performance Fair	Explain the mt-sDNA Test and its clinical Performance Poor
Analyze the clinical application of the mt-sDNA test	Analyze the clinical application of the mt-sDNA test Excellent	Analyze the clinical application of the mt-sDNA test Good	Analyze the clinical application of the mt-sDNA test Fair	Analyze the clinical application of the mt-sDNA test Poor
Evaluate patient cases in relation to CRC screening options	Evaluate patient cases in relation to CRC screening options Excellent	Evaluate patient cases in relation to CRC screening options Good	Evaluate patient cases in relation to CRC screening options Fair	Evaluate patient cases in relation to CRC screening options Poor

Did you feel there were any aspects of commercialism? *

Which aspect of the lecture did you feel was most significant to your needs and why: *

Will you make any changes in your practice as a result of the information from this seminar? *

The content covered will improve my following competencies (check all that apply): *

Other (please specify):

prior to the presentation *

	Very low	Low	Average	High	Higest
How would you rate your knowledge level of the subject matter discussed prior to the presentation(s)	How would you rate your knowledge level of the subject matter discussed prior to the presentation(s) Very low	How would you rate your knowledge level of the subject matter discussed prior to the presentation(s) Low	How would you rate your knowledge level of the subject matter discussed prior to the presentation(s) Average	How would you rate your knowledge level of the subject matter discussed prior to the presentation(s) High	How would you rate your knowledge level of the subject matter discussed prior to the presentation(s) Higest

following the presentation *

	Very Low	Low	Average	High	Higest
How would you rate your knowledge level of the subject matter discussed following the presentation(s)	How would you rate your knowledge level of the subject matter discussed following the presentation(s) Very Low	How would you rate your knowledge level of the subject matter discussed following the presentation(s) Low	How would you rate your knowledge level of the subject matter discussed following the presentation(s) Average	How would you rate your knowledge level of the subject matter discussed following the presentation(s) High	How would you rate your knowledge level of the subject matter discussed following the presentation(s) Higest

What future topics would you like to see offered in the area of Obesity? Other areas? *

Thank Your For Your Input