Table 7 Evaluation of educational training of GPs
No. | Evaluation area and domain | 1st educational training date | 2nd educational training date | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
(n = 5) | (n = 2) | (n = 7) | ||
Dissemination of knowledge, median (range) | ||||
At the training, I was systematically taught | ||||
1 | The differences between the most important vertigo syndromes. | 2.0 (1.0–3.0) | 1.5 (1.0–2.0) | 2.0 (1.0–3.0) |
2 | Methods for diagnosing positional vertigo. | 1.0 (1.0–1.0) | 1.5. (1.0–2.0) | 1.0 (1.0–2.0) |
3 | Forms of therapy and their instructions for the most important vertigo syndromes. | 2.0 (1.0–4.0) | 1.5. (1.0–2.0) | 2.0 (1.0–4.0) |
4 | How to apply the checklist in practice. | 1.0 (1.0–2.0) | 1.0 (1.0–1.0) | 1.0 (1.0–2.0) |
Gain in know-how skills, median (range) | ||||
5 | At the training, I was systematically taught a neurological screening. | 2.0 (1.0–3.0) | 1.5 (1.0–2.0) | 2.0 (1.0–3.0) |
6 | After the training, I feel able to apply the demonstrated examination techniques. | 2.0 (1.0–2.0) | 1.0 (1.0–1.0) | 1.0 (1.0–2.0) |
7 | The contents of the training were adequate for the independent practical application of the checklist. | 2.0 (1.0–2.0) | 1.0 (1.0–1.0) | 1.0 (1.0–2.0) |
8 | The workshop was well-structured and organized for practical application of the checklist. | 2.0 (1.0–2,0) | 1.0 (1.0–1.0) | 1.0 (1.0–2.0) |
Temporal organization, median (range) | ||||
9 | The duration of the workshop was appropriate. | 1.5 (1.0–2.0) | 1.0 (1.0–1.0) | 1.0 (1.0–2.0) |
Total quality of educational training (No 1–9), mean (range) | 1.7 (1.0–2.0) | 1.2 (1.0–1.5) | 1.3 (1.0–2.0) | |
Other, median (range) | ||||
10 | In your opinion, is there a need for such training among GPs? | 1.0 (1.0–2.0) | 1.0 (1.0–1.0) | 1.0 (1.0–2.0) |
11 | Do you already use the presented techniques for vertigo syndromes? | 3.0 (1.0–4.0) | 2.5 (2.0–3.0) | 3.0 (1.0–4.0) |