NTCA
2019 National TB Conference and Section Meetings Evaluation
[pic]
Evaluation Instructions
Welcome to the Word version of the evaluation for the 2019 National TB Conference and the 2019 NSTC, NTNC, and SETC Annual Meetings.
The subsections of the evaluation start on the following pages:
Contact and Demographic Information: Page 2
National TB Nurse Coalition Annual Meeting, April 23: Page 5
National Society of TB Clinicians Annual Meeting, April 23: Page 12
Society of Epidemiology in TB Control, April 23: Page 18
National TB Conference, April 24-26: Page 24
Please complete this form for the educational sessions that you attended, save it under your name, and email it to Jennifer Kanouse at jkanouse@.
For continuing education credits, this evaluation must be emailed by close of business on May 10, 2019.
If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Kanouse at jkanouse@.
Thank you.
Contact and Demographic Information
Your Contact Information
First Name: _________________________________________________
Last Name: _________________________________________________
Phone Number: _________________________________________________
Email: _________________________________________________
[pic]
Current Job and Work Experience
1) What is your principal occupation? (Check all that apply.)*
[ ] TB Controller, Assistant TB Controller, or Deputy TB Controller
[ ] TB Program Manager or Assistant TB Program Manager
[ ] Physician or other prescribing clinician
[ ] Nurse
[ ] Laboratorian
[ ] Epidemiologist
[ ] Researcher, scientist or academic
[ ] Health educator
[ ] Other (please specify): _________________________________________________
2) In which sector do you work?*
( ) Public
( ) Private
( ) Both public and private
3) What best describes your work setting? (Check all that apply.)*
[ ] National TB program
[ ] Federal agency
[ ] Territorial agency
[ ] State agency
[ ] County agency
[ ] City agency
[ ] Laboratory
[ ] Non-governmental organization
[ ] University
[ ] Other (please specify): _________________________________________________
4) What percent of your job is devoted to tuberculosis?*
( ) 0-25%
( ) 26-50%
( ) 51-75%
( ) 76-100%
5) How long have you worked in public health and TB?
Years worked in public health: _________________________________________________
Years worked in TB: _________________________________________________
[pic]
Continuing Education Credits
6) What type of credits or
certificate are you requesting?*
( ) CHES
( ) CME
( ) MOC
( ) CME and MOC
( ) CNE
( ) Participation Certificate
( ) I do not want a certificate or continuing education units--I'm providing evaluation comments only.
Which NTCA section meeting did you attend on April 23?
( ) National TB Nurse Coalition (NTNC) Annual Meeting – Skip to page 5
( ) National Society of TB Clinicians (NSTC) Annual Meeting – Skip to page 12
( ) Society for Epidemiology in TB Control (SETC) Business Meeting – Skip to page 18
( ) I did not attend an NTCA section meeting. – Skip to page 24
[pic]
2019 NTNC Annual Meeting
From Simple to Complex: Exploring Key Aspects of Case Management
In this two-page evaluation, you'll be asked for feedback on the 2019 National TB Nurse Coalition Annual Meeting.
Objectives
At the end of each presentation or session, participants should be able to meet the objective or objectives for that presentation or session. Please review the objectives below and indicate whether each objective was fully met, partially met or not met.
| |Fully met |Partially met |Not met |Did not attend |
|Basic Case Study -- Heidi Hammond-Epstein |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Describe basic principles of case investigation and case management of suspected and | | | | |
|confirmed cases of tuberculosis and apply these principles to improve patient | | | | |
|outcomes in their clinical practice. | | | | |
|Molecular Reporting -- Beverly Metchock |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Explain the significance of molecular testing drug results and apply this information| | | | |
|in the care of their patients with TB to improve patient outcomes. | | | | |
|MDR Case Study -- Myrna Leiper |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|1. Describe basic principles of case investigation and case management of suspected | | | | |
|and confirmed cases of tuberculosis and apply these principles to improve patient | | | | |
|outcomes in their clinical practice. | | | | |
|2. Identify patient and nursing challenges for patients on complex drug regimens and |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|discuss possible interventions that can be used in their work settings to improve | | | | |
|patient outcomes. | | | | |
|MDR Adverse Reactions Tool -- Ann Raftery |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|List available resources for managing patients on complex drug regimens and access | | | | |
|these resources as needed for care of complex clinical cases. | | | | |
|Small Group Session |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Discuss ten critical strategies for managing case and contact investigation of both | | | | |
|simple and complex cases of tuberculosis and apply these strategies to improve | | | | |
|contact investigation outcomes. | | | | |
Comments:
Who led the small group session that you attended?
( ) Patricia Woods
( ) Ellen Murray
( ) Catalina Navarro and Iris Barrera
( ) Ann Raftery
( ) I did not attend a small group session.
Bias
Were each of the presentations and sessions listed below free from bias? Please respond for each session you attended and describe any bias you noticed in the comments box.
| |Free from |Not free from|Did not attend |
| |bias |bias | |
|Basic Case Study – Heidi Hammond-Epstein |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Molecular Reporting – Beverly Metchock |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|MDR Case Study – Myrna Leiper |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|MDR Adverse Reactions Tools – Ann Raftery |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Small Group Session |( ) |( ) |( ) |
Comments:
[pic]
General Feedback on the NTNC Annual Meeting Program, Facilities, and Services
General Comments
What is your overall rating for the 2019 National TB Nurse Coalition Annual Meeting?
( ) 5 - Excellent
( ) 4 - Good
( ) 3 - Average
( ) 2 - Fair
( ) 1 - Poor
Is the information provided in this meeting likely to lead you to change your practice?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) Unsure
( ) Not Applicable
Please describe the changes below.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What did you like most about the 2019 National TB Nurse Coalition Annual Meeting?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What did you like least about the 2019 National TB Nurse Coalition Annual Meeting?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What improvements do you suggest for the 2020 National TB Nurse Coalition Annual Meeting?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What topics and presenters do you suggest for the 2020 National TB Nurse Coalition Annual Meeting?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
The Meeting Program, Facilities, and Services
Select the number that reflects your rating of each aspect of the educational program:
5=Excellent; 4=Good; 3=Average; 2=Fair; 1=Poor.
| |5: Excellent |4: Good |3: Average |2: Fair |1: Poor |
|Relevance of the program |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Degree to which the program met my expectations |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Degree to which the program met my learning objectives |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Opportunity to interact with other participants |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Credibility of the program and its lack of bias |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Organization of the program |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Amount of time for discussion |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
What is the single most important idea or piece of information you are taking back to share or investigate further for possible implementation in your program?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What additional ideas or information that you learned/heard during this meeting are most likely to help you improve your program’s performance?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Please share any comments or suggestions regarding meeting materials.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Thank you for your feedback on the 2019 NTNC Annual Meeting.
To evaluate the National TB Conference, April 24-26, skip to Page 24.
[pic]
2019 NSTC Annual Meeting
In this two-page evaluation, you'll be asked for feedback on the 2019 National Society of TB Clinicians Annual Meeting.
Objectives
At the end of each presentation or session, participants should be able to meet the objective or objectives for that presentation or session. Please review the objectives below and indicate whether each objective was fully met, partially met or not met.
| |Fully met |Partially met |Not met |Did not attend |
|Updated: National LTBI Guidelines -- Tim Sterling |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Describe how GRADE criteria, data from a systematic literature review, and network | | | | |
|meta-analysis are informing the upcoming national LTBI treatment guidelines to | | | | |
|improve patient care and outcomes. | | | | |
|Update: Clinical TB Trials -- Bob Horsburgh |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|1. Discuss ongoing clinical trials of treatment for drug-susceptible TB disease that | | | | |
|may lead to improved treatment tolerability and/or outcomes for patients. | | | | |
|2. Discuss new clinical trial designs may speed the development of new regimens for |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|TB treatment for improved patient care. | | | | |
|Towards Improved TB Diagnosis and Treatment: Insights from Immunological Studies -- |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Jyothi Rengarajan | | | | |
|1. Describe recent advances in identifying host biomarkers for TB diagnosis and | | | | |
|monitoring treatment response to improve patient care and outcomes. | | | | |
|2. Identify T cell responses associated with active and latent TB in humans to |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|improve diagnosis. | | | | |
|Update: National MDR TB Guidelines -- Barbara Seaworth |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|1. Identify treatment regimens leading to the best patient outcomes for treatment of | | | | |
|MDR and XDR TB. | | | | |
|2. Outline a treatment regimen by identifying individual drugs based on the drug’s |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|bactericidal activity, ability to prevent relapse, positive association with | | | | |
|treatment completion or cure and avoiding drugs associated with poorer outcomes | | | | |
|including failure, acquired drug resistance, and relapse. | | | | |
|3. Discuss the importance of patient-centered care for MDR TB including toxicity |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|monitoring, patient education, and choice. | | | | |
Comments:
Bias
Were each of the presentations and sessions listed below free from bias? Please respond for each session you attended and describe any bias you noticed in the comments box.
| |Free from |Not free from|Did not attend |
| |bias |bias | |
|Update: National TB Guidelines – Tim Sterling,em> |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Update: Clinical TB Trials – Bob Horsburgh |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Towards Improved TB Diagnosis and Treatment: Insights from Immunological Studies – |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Jyothi Rengarajan | | | |
|Update: National MDR TB Guidelines –Barbara Seaworth |( ) |( ) |( ) |
Comments:
[pic]
General Feedback on the NSTC Annual Meeting Program, Facilities, and Services
What is your overall rating for the 2019 National Society of TB Clinicians Annual Meeting?
( ) 5 - Excellent
( ) 4 - Good
( ) 3 - Average
( ) 2 - Fair
( ) 1 - Poor
Is the information provided in this meeting likely to lead you to change your practice?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) Unsure
( ) Not Applicable
Please describe the changes below.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What did you like most about the 2019 National Society of TB Clincians Annual Meeting?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What did you like least about the 2019 National Society of TB Clincians Annual Meeting?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What improvements do you suggest for the 2019 National Society of TB Clincians Annual Meeting?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What topics and presenters do you suggest for the 2019 National Society of TB Clinicians Annual Meeting?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
The Meeting Program, Facilities, and Services
Select the number that reflects your rating of each aspect of the educational program:
5=Excellent; 4=Good; 3=Average; 2=Fair; 1=Poor.
| |5: Excellent |4: Good |3: Average |2: Fair |1: Poor |
|Relevance of the program |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Degree to which the program met my expectations |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Degree to which the program met my learning objectives |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Opportunity to interact with other participants |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Credibility of the program and its lack of bias |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Organization of the program |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Amount of time for discussion |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
What is the single most important idea or piece of information you are taking back to share or investigate further for possible implementation in your program?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What additional ideas or information that you learned/heard during this meeting are most likely to help you improve your program’s performance?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Please share any comments or suggestions regarding meeting materials.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Thank you for your feedback on the 2019 NSTC Annual Meeting.
To evaluate the National TB Conference, April 24-26, skip to Page 24.
[pic]
2019 SETC Business Meeting
In this two-page evaluation, you'll be asked for feedback on the 2019 Society for Epidemiology in TB Control (SETC) Meeting.
Objectives
At the end of each presentation or session, participants should be able to meet the objective or objectives for that presentation or session. Please review the objectives below and indicate whether each objective was fully met, partially met or not met.
| |Fully met |Partially met |Not met |Did not attend |
|Molecular Surveillance Updates from DTBE -- Ben Silk and Kala Raz |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|1. List the major TB GIMS enhancements to support national TB molecular surveillance.| | | | |
|2. Describe the strategic direction and applications of universal whole-genome |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|sequencing. | | | | |
|3. Outline steps in plans for reporting large outbreak surveillance data. |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Molecular Epidemiology in the Field – The California Experience -- Martin Cilnis and |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Wendy Noboa | | | | |
|1. Describe the experience of TB programs at the state and local level in using whole| | | | |
|genome | | | | |
|2. Identify benefits and challenges of implementing WGS for outbreak detection and |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|investigation. | | | | |
|Case Study of DTBE Cluster Investigation Tools -- Katherine Winglee and Clint |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|McDaniel | | | | |
|1. Demonstrate through a hypothetical scenario how to process, integrate, analyze, | | | | |
|and visualize data for investigating recent TB transmission using new molecular | | | | |
|epidemiology tools. | | | | |
|2. List three situations when these tools can be useful to augment the level of |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|program practice during TB investigations. | | | | |
|3. Identify where these tools can be found. |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
Comments:
Bias
Were each of the presentations and sessions listed below free from bias? Please respond for each session you attended and describe any bias you noticed in the comments box.
| |Free from |Not free from|Did not attend |
| |bias |bias | |
|Molecular Surveillance Updates from DTBE – Ben Silk and Kala Raz |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Molecular Epidemiology in the Field – The California Experience – Martin Cilnis and |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Wendy Noboa | | | |
|Case Study of DTBE Cluster Investigation Tools – Katherine Winglee and Clint McDaniel|( ) |( ) |( ) |
Comments:
[pic]
General Comments
What is your overall rating for the 2019 Society for Epidemiology in TB Control (SETC) Business Meeting?
( ) 5 - Excellent
( ) 4 - Good
( ) 3 - Average
( ) 2 - Fair
( ) 1 - Poor
Is the information provided in this meeting likely to lead you to change your practice?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) Unsure
( ) Not Applicable
Please describe the changes below.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What did you like most about the 2019 SETC Business Meeting?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What did you like least about the 2019 SETC Business Meeting?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What improvements do you suggest for the 2019 SETC Business Meeting?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What topics and presenters do you suggest for the 2019 SETC Business Meeting?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
The Meeting Program, Facilities, and Services
Select the number that reflects your rating of each aspect of the educational program:
5=Excellent; 4=Good; 3=Average; 2=Fair; 1=Poor.
| |5: Excellent |4: Good |3: Average |2: Fair |1: Poor |
|Relevance of the program |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Degree to which the program met my expectations |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Degree to which the program met my learning objectives |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Opportunity to interact with other participants |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Credibility of the program and its lack of bias |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Organization of the program |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Amount of time for discussion |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
What is the single most important idea or piece of information you are taking back to share or investigate further for possible implementation in your program?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What additional ideas or information that you learned/heard during this meeting are most likely to help you improve your program’s performance?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Please share any comments or suggestions regarding meeting materials.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Thank you for your feedback on the 2019 SETC Business Meeting.
[pic]
2019 National TB Conference
In this part of the evaluation, you'll be asked for feedback on the 2019 National TB Conference sessions April 24-26.
Nurse Case Management Breakfast: Boots on the Ground: Using Critical Thinking Skills in Nurse Case Management
Objectives
At the end of each presentation or session, participants should be able to meet the objective or objectives for that presentation or session. Please review the objectives below and indicate whether each objective was fully met, partially met or not met.
| |Fully met |Partially met |Not met |Did not attend |
|Nurse Case Management Beyond Medical Complexities - Denise Dodge |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Retention in Care when the Patient Is Incarcerated - Pat Iyer | | | | |
|1. Describe the importance of innovative nurse case management interventions which | | | | |
|improve tuberculosis (TB) treatment outcomes for complex patients. | | | | |
|2. List four ways that innovative nurse case management interventions improve TB |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|treatment outcomes for complex patients. | | | | |
Comments:
Bias
Were each of the presentations and sessions listed below free from bias? Please respond for each session you attended and describe any bias you noticed in the comments box.
| |Free from |Not free from|Did not attend |
| |bias |bias | |
|Nurse Case Management Beyond Medical Complexities - Denise Dodge |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Retention in Care when the Patient Is Incarcerated – - Pat Iyer |( ) |( ) |( ) |
Comments on the Nurse Case Management Breakfast
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
[pic]
General Session I: Joint Opening Session
Objectives
At the end of each presentation, participants should be able to meet the objective or objectives for that presentation or session. Please review the objectives below and indicate whether each objective was fully met, partially met or not met.
| |Fully met |Partially met |Not met |Did not attend |
|Welcome and Opening Remarks -- Diana Fortune/Marie-Claire Rowlinson |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Define the importance of laboratory and TB program collaboration for effective TB | | | | |
|prevention, control, and elimination. | | | | |
|Tuberculosis Prevention, Control, and Elimination in the U.S. in 2019 -‐ Perspective |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|from the Director of the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB | | | | |
|Prevention – Jonathan Mermin | | | | |
|1. Describe the vision of the NCHHSTP regarding domestic TB prevention, control, and | | | | |
|elimination priorities to advance TB elimination in the United States. | | | | |
|2. From the perspective of NCHHSTP/DTBE, articulate the opportunities that National |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|TB Controllers Association can realize to advance TB elimination in the United | | | | |
|States. | | | | |
|3. Using GIS approach, describe the demography of US domestic TB populations at risk |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|(homeless, HIV/TB, race/ethnicity). | | | | |
|The Genomics of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Changing the Focus of Public Health – |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Barry Kreiswirth | | | | |
|1. Describe the public health impact of using both molecular epidemiology of | | | | |
|Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates and field epidemiology information related to | | | | |
|individual isolates in a population to optimize public health interventions. | | | | |
|2. Explain that the molecular epidemiology of Mycobacterium tuberculosis can |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|distinguish isolates into clusters that differ in virulence, transmissibility, and | | | | |
|other epidemiologic features to improve public health interventions. | | | | |
|3. Describe methods whereby whole genome sequence laboratory analysis can overcome |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|limitations of contact tracing and field epidemiology to improve public health | | | | |
|interventions. | | | | |
|Surviving TB in Majuro: My Story, My Voice - Dr. Zachraias Zachraias |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Describe the psychosocial impacts of TB on patients from the account of a TB survivor| | | | |
|to improve patient care and outcomes. | | | | |
Comments:
Bias
Were each of the presentations listed below free from bias? Please respond for each session you attended and describe any bias you noticed in the comments box.
| |Free from |Not free from|Did not attend |
| |bias |bias | |
|Welcome and Opening Remarks – Diana Fortune/Marie-Claire Rowlinson |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Tuberculosis Prevention, Control, and Elimination in the U.S. in 2019 -‐ Perspective |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|from the Director of the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB | | | |
|Prevention –Jonathan Mermin | | | |
| | | | |
|The Genomics of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Changing the Focus of Public Health – |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Barry Kreiswirth | | | |
| Surviving TB in Majuro: My Story, My Voice – Dr. Zachraias Zachraias |( ) |( ) |( ) |
Comments on General Session I:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
[pic]
General Session II: Global-Domestic TB Linkages
Objectives
At the end of each presentation, participants should be able to meet the objective or objectives for that presentation or session. Please review the objectives below and indicate whether each objective was fully met, partially met or not met.
| |Fully met |Partially met |Not met |Did not attend |
|Implementation of US Screening – Joanna Regan |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|1. Explain how US-bound immigrants and refugees are screened for TB to improve | | | | |
|community health. | | | | |
|2. Describe the effect of this screening program on US tuberculosis efforts to |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|decrease Mycobacterium tuberculosis. | | | | |
|3. Outline how information from the overseas exam is transmitted to the receiving |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|health departments to improve patient care. | | | | |
|Technical Instructions for TB Screening and Treatment: A Panel Physician’s |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Perspective -- Roberto Assael | | | | |
|1. Describe the CDC TB Technical Instructions and its application, including for | | | | |
|directly observed therapy, to improve patient care and community health. | | | | |
|2. Explain guidelines for travel clearance and how to apply these guidelines in their|( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|practice to assure follow-up after arrival. | | | | |
|3. Explain the impact on US TB care that occurred from the implementation of the |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Technical Instructions. | | | | |
|Civil Surgeon Engagement: Program Perspective -- Katelynne Gardner Toren and |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Mackenzie Fuller | | | | |
|1. Explain how a local health jurisdiction developed a process to handle the new | | | | |
|civil surgeon requirement of reporting TB infection, listing the challenges and | | | | |
|successes around that implementation. | | | | |
|2. Describe methods for conducting outreach to civil surgeons, including defining |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|their civil surgeon population; conducting a knowledge, attitudes, and practices | | | | |
|survey of civil surgeons; and designing a civil surgeon training. | | | | |
|Enhancing Immigrant and Refugee (EDN) Surveillance in Philadelphia -- S.Z. Ginny |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Robison | | | | |
|Describe how to apply lessons learned from this study to adjust the workflow and make| | | | |
|enhancements to the data management process for the Electronic Disease Notification | | | | |
|(EDN) surveillance activities to improve program outcomes in their work settings. | | | | |
Comments:
Bias
Were each of the presentations listed below free from bias? Please respond for each session you attended and describe any bias you noticed in the comments box.
| |Free from |Not free from|Did not attend |
| |bias |bias | |
|Implementation of US Screening – Joanna Regan |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Technical Instructions for TB Screening and Treatment: A Panel Physician’s |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Perspective – Roberto Assael | | | |
|Civil Surgeon Engagement: Program Perspective – Katelynne Gardner Toren and Mackenzie|( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Fuller | | | |
|Enhancing Immigrant and Refugee (EDN) Surveillance in Philadelphia – S.Z. Ginny |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Robison | | | |
Comments on General Session II:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
[pic]
General Session III: Moving Toward TB Elimination
Objectives
At the end of each presentation, participants should be able to meet the objective or objectives for that presentation or session. Please review the objectives below and indicate whether each objective was fully met, partially met or not met.
| |Fully met |Partially met |Not met |Did not attend |
|CDC and Partner Activities to Engage Providers and Communities on LTBI Testing and |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Treatment -- Nick DeLuca | | | | |
|1. Describe the current approach and rationale for scaling up LTBI testing and | | | | |
|treatment to eliminate TB in the United States. | | | | |
|2. List CDC and partner research, communications, and partnership efforts to promote |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|LTBI testing and treatment. | | | | |
|3. Identify actions and methods that could be used to move TB infection testing and |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|treatment forward in the United States. | | | | |
|TB Infection Surveillance: Progress, Practicality and Pitfalls -- Andy Tibbs |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|1. Describe the approaches a NTCA workgroup is suggesting for structuring a TB | | | | |
|infection surveillance system and use this information to consider what surveillance | | | | |
|components may be feasible to incorporate in their practice to facilitate ability to | | | | |
|monitor progress towards identifying and treating TB infection in their patient | | | | |
|population. | | | | |
|2. Describe the Massachusetts programmatic experience with TB infection surveillance |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|and identify actions and methods that could be used to move TB infection surveillance| | | | |
|forward in the United States with the end goal of identifying and preventing those at| | | | |
|risk from developing TB disease. | | | | |
|Innovations in TB Elimination: Community Education, Nursing Strategies for Primary |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Care Providers – Ann Scarpita | | | | |
|1. Identify at least one component of TB case management necessary to assist a | | | | |
|patient with TB infection to safely complete treatment. | | | | |
|2. Describe at least one effective approach to strengthen capacity and partnerships |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|for TB prevention and control. | | | | |
|Addressing Latent Tuberculosis Infection Testing and Treatment in Orange County, |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|California: Baseline Assessment at a Local Health Center -- Julie Low | | | | |
|Describe the barriers and current practices related to LTBI screening and treatment | | | | |
|at a local community clinic servicing individuals at-risk for LTBI as lessons learned| | | | |
|for consideration when facilitating community-based LTBI screening and treatment in | | | | |
|their setting. | | | | |
Comments:
Bias
Were each of the presentations listed below free from bias? Please respond for each session you attended and describe any bias you noticed in the comments box.
| |Free from |Not free from|Did not attend |
| |bias |bias | |
|What’s on the Horizon? CDC and Partner Activities to Engage Providers and Communities|( ) |( ) |( ) |
|on LTBI Testing and Treatment – Nick DeLuca | | | |
|TB Infection Surveillance: Progress, Practicality and Pitfalls – Andy Tibbs |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Innovations in TB Elimination: Community Education, Nursing Strategies for Primary |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Care Providers – Ann Scarpita | | | |
|Addressing Latent Tuberculosis Infection Testing and Treatment in Orange County, |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|California: Baseline Assessment at a Local Health Center – Julie Low | | | |
Comments on General Session III:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
[pic]
Breakout Session A1: TB + Leprosy Free Majuro Campaign: NTCA Boots-on-the-Ground!
Objectives
At the end of each presentation, participants should be able to meet the objective or objectives for that presentation or session. Please review the objectives below and indicate whether each objective was fully met, partially met or not met.
| |Fully met |Partially met |Not met |Did not attend |
|Addressing the Unacceptable Burden of Suffering and Misery from TB in Majuro – |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Richard Brostrom | | | | |
|Describe TB epidemiology in the Marshall Islands related to community health | | | | |
|outcomes. | | | | |
|Preparing a Community for a Mass TB Campaign – Risa Bukbuk |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Describe the process of getting input for the TBLFM campaign from local leaders and | | | | |
|implementing community TB screening messages for achieving positive community health | | | | |
|outcomes. | | | | |
|Training Staff and Implementing LTBI Processes for a Mass TB Campaign – Ann Raftery |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|1. Describe the rapid training needs assessment conducted prior to starting the TB | | | | |
|and leprosy screening campaign and apply lessons learned to future endeavors. | | | | |
|2. Describe several key components for establishing a mass LTBI treatment |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|distribution system to achieve positive treatment outcomes. | | | | |
|The Ups and Downs of Data Management in Majuro – Tessa Mochizuki and Angela Largen |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Describe the challenges and opportunities in managing data for a mass screening | | | | |
|campaign, with multiple data streams. | | | | |
|Mass TB Treatment Process and Perspectives: Operationalizing Rapid TB Diagnosis – |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Barbara Andrino | | | | |
|Describe the benefits and downsides of rapid TB screening and TB diagnosis by | | | | |
|committee for ensuring timely treatment of patients. | | | | |
|Mass LTBI Treatment Process and Perspectives: Inside and Outside Viewpoints for |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Starting 50 People on LTBI treatment Every Day – Sheldon Riklon | | | | |
|List ways that the campaign addressed perceptions for improving acceptance for LTBI | | | | |
|to achieve positive community health outcomes. | | | | |
|Program Improvements and Early Mass Screening Results – Zachraias Zachraias and |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Richard Brostrom | | | | |
|Based on a review of initial data from TB and LTBI screening results, describe the | | | | |
|impact of TBLFM on the TB program in RMI for achieving positive community health | | | | |
|outcomes. | | | | |
|NTCA’s Role: Sharing the Work and Sharing the Rewards– Jon Warkentin |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|9. Describe the changes required in mainland expectations for working in | | | | |
|resource-limited high-incidence settings to achieve positive community health | | | | |
|outcomes. | | | | |
Comments:
Bias
Were each of the presentations listed below free from bias? Please respond for each session you attended and describe any bias you noticed in the comments box.
| |Free from |Not free from|Did not attend |
| |bias |bias | |
|Addressing the Unacceptable Burden of Suffering and Misery from TB in Majuro – |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Richard Brostrom | | | |
|Preparing a Community for a Mass TB Campaign – Risa Bukbuk |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Training Staff and Implementing LTBI Processes for a Mass TB Campaign – Ann Raftery |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|The Ups and Downs of Data Management in Majuro – Tessa Mochizuki and Angela Largen |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Mass TB Treatment Process and Perspectives: Operationalizing Rapid TB Diagnosis – |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Barbara Andrino | | | |
|Mass LTBI Treatment Process and Perspectives: Inside and Outside Viewpoints for |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Starting 50 People on LTBI treatment Every Day – Sheldon Riklon | | | |
|Program Improvements and Early Mass Screening Results – Zachraias Zachraias and |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Richard Brostrom | | | |
|NTCA’s Role: Sharing the Work and Sharing the Rewards – Jon Warkentin |( ) |( ) |( ) |
Comments on Breakout A1:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
[pic]
Breakout Session A2: Advocacy: Walking the Line
Objectives
At the end of each presentation, participants should be able to meet the objective or objectives for that presentation or session. Please review the objectives below and indicate whether each objective was fully met, partially met or not met.
| |Fully met |Partially met |Not met |Did not attend |
|Team Facilitation -- Peter Davidson, Kate O'Brien, Elizabeth Lovinger, Annette |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Gaudino | | | | |
|1. List the limitations and tensions faced by public health to participate in TB | | | | |
|advocacy. | | | | |
|2. Explain the variety of forms and opportunities in which advocacy can take place to|( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|improve patient care and community health. | | | | |
|3. Describe approaches used to navigate conflicts. |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|4. Define roles in advocacy to improve patient care and community health. |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|5. Explain how to strategically collaborate with the TB community on shared advocacy |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|goals. | | | | |
Comments:
Bias
Were each of the presentations listed below free from bias? Please respond for each session you attended and describe any bias you noticed in the comments box.
| |Free from |Not free from|Did not attend |
| |bias |bias | |
|Advocacy: Walking the Line |( ) |( ) |( ) |
Comments on Breakout A2:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
[pic]
Breakout Choice for Thursday, April 25
Which breakout session did you attend on Thursday, April 25?*
( ) Breakout Session B1: The Essential Role of NAAT in the Diagnosis and Rule-out of TB
( ) Breakout Session B2: Drug-Resistant TB: Diagnostic and Clinical Implications of a Changing Landscape
( ) I did not attend either of these breakout sessions.
Breakout Session B1: The Essential Role of NAAT in the Diagnosis and Rule-out of TB
Objectives
At the end of each presentation, participants should be able to meet the objective or objectives for that presentation or session. Please review the objectives below and indicate whether each objective was fully met, partially met or not met.
| |Fully met |Partially met |Not met |Did not attend |
|NAAT Utilization for U.S. TB Patients and Overview of Current Guidelines – Angela |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Starks | | | | |
|1. Describe the use of NAAT for diagnosis of U.S. TB patients and the demographic and| | | | |
|microbiologic factors associated with use of this methodology to improve diagnosis | | | | |
|and patient care. | | | | |
|2. Explain the current NAAT guidelines and receive feedback about the potential need |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|for updating guidance to improve diagnosis and patient care. | | | | |
|Jackson Health System Experience with Change in Practice Using GeneXpert – Regina |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|McDade | | | | |
|1. Describe of the use of NAAT and electronic order bundle to decrease time in | | | | |
|airborne infection isolation and overall hospital length of stay. | | | | |
|2. Describe how change in practice was implemented and challenges of sustaining this |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|change in practice in a large health system (one academic hospital, two community | | | | |
|hospitals, and Correctional Health Service). | | | | |
|The Role of NAAT in the Ideal Algorithm for Diagnosis of TB – Marie-Claire Rowlinson |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|1. Review the recently published Laboratory Practice Guidelines and describe the use | | | | |
|of TB NAAT in the ideal algorithm to improve diagnosis. | | | | |
|2. List challenges and successes of implementing the ideal algorithm at a state |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|public health laboratory to improve diagnosis. | | | | |
|3. Explain the role of NAAT in improving diagnosis and treatment of TB patients to |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|improve patient care. | | | | |
Comments:
Bias
Were each of the presentations listed below free from bias? Please respond for each session you attended and describe any bias you noticed in the comments box.
| |Free from |Not free from|Did not attend |
| |bias |bias | |
|NAAT Utilization for U.S. TB Patients and Overview of Current Guidelines – Angela |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Starks | | | |
|Jackson Health System Experience with Change in Practice Using GeneXpert – Regina |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|McDade | | | |
| | | | |
|The Role of NAAT in the Ideal Algorithm for Diagnosis of TB – Marie-Claire Rowlinson |( ) |( ) |( ) |
| | | | |
Comments on Breakout B1:
____________________________________________
___________________________________________
[pic]
Breakout Session B2: Drug-Resistant-TB: Diagnostic and Clinical Implications of a Changing Landscape
Objectives
At the end of each presentation, participants should be able to meet the objective or objectives for that presentation or session. Please review the objectives below and indicate whether each objective was fully met, partially met or not met.
| |Fully met |Partially met |Not met |Did not attend |
|Laboratory Testing for TB Drug Resistance Detection (Emphasis on Xpert MTB/RIF Assay)|( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|– Grace Lin | | | | |
|1. Describe how to arrange optimal testing for rapid detection of drug-resistant TB. | | | | |
|1. Explain how to interpret the test results for patient care, while recognizing the |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|tests’ limitations. | | | | |
|Use of Microbiology Laboratory Diagnostics in the Care of Patients: Could This Be |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Drug-Resistant TB? – Felicia Dworkin | | | | |
|1. Explain when to use the microbiological testing methods available locally for | | | | |
|improved patient care. | | | | |
|2. Describe how to manage clinic resources more efficiently with microbiology rapid |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|testing methods. | | | | |
|3. Explain when to consult with state or national laboratories for additional testing|( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|methods to improve diagnosis of drug-resistant TB. | | | | |
|MedicaL mAnagement of tB, Give Me an L, an A, and a B: a Texas Case Study – Elizabeth|( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Foy | | | | |
|1. Based on a case study, list ways to update clinic policies for rapidly diagnosing | | | | |
|drug-resistant TB to improve patient care. | | | | |
|2. Based on a case study, describe how to coordinate case management with |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|microbiology laboratories outside the public health system to improve patient care. | | | | |
Comments:
Bias
Were each of the presentations listed below free from bias? Please respond for each session you attended and describe any bias you noticed in the comments box.
| |Free from |Not free from|Did not attend |
| |bias |bias | |
|Laboratory Testing for TB Drug Resistance Detection (Emphasis on Xpert MTB/RIF Assay)|( ) |( ) |( ) |
|– Grace Lin | | | |
|Use of Microbiology Laboratory Diagnostics in the Care of Patients: Could This Be |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Drug-Resistant TB? – Felicia Dworkin | | | |
| MedicaL mAnagement of tB, Give Me an L, an A, and a B: a Texas Case Study – |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Elizabeth Foy | | | |
Comments on Breakout B2:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
[pic]
General Session IV: Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) for TB: Innovation, Implementation, Impact
Objectives
At the end of each presentation, participants should be able to meet the objective or objectives for that presentation or session. Please review the objectives below and indicate whether each objective was fully met, partially met or not met.
| |Fully met |Partially met |Not met |Did not attend |
|A, C, G, TB: A Gentle Introduction to the Wonderful World of TB Whole Genome |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Sequencing – Jennifer Gardy | | | | |
|1. Explain, at a high level, the technical basis of bacterial whole genome sequencing| | | | |
|(WGS) and bioinformatics analysis to consider their application to improve community | | | | |
|health. | | | | |
|2. Describe the diagnostic and epidemiological insights made possible by TB WGS to |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|improve patient care and community health. | | | | |
|3. List the challenges with implementing TB WGS in a research or laboratory setting |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|to improve utilization of WGS. | | | | |
|Advances in Predictive Value of Sequencing for Drug Susceptibility Testing -- Derrick|( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Crook | | | | |
|1. Describe approaches for discovering variation conferring resistance to | | | | |
|anti-tuberculosis drugs to improve the diagnosis of drug resistance. | | | | |
|2. Examine the need for and approaches to building a comprehensive catalogue of |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|variation for resistance prediction. | | | | |
|3. Describe clinical validation of resistance prediction for diagnostic use. |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Update on Universal Whole Genome Sequencing at the National Tuberculosis Molecular |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Surveillance Center – Jamie Posey | | | | |
|1. Summarize the current status of whole genome sequencing of Mycobacterium | | | | |
|tuberculosis at the National TB Molecular Surveillance Center. | | | | |
|2. Describe current updates and future plans for analytic tools to examine whole |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|genome sequencing data to improve community health. | | | | |
|Implementation of Universal Whole-Genome Sequencing for Detection of Drug Resistance |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|and Epidemiologic Investigation in a Local Tuberculosis Program Setting -- Jillian | | | | |
|Knorr | | | | |
|1. Describe mechanisms for communication and application of WGS results for | | | | |
|prediction of TB drug resistance among laboratories, Health Department staff and | | | | |
|clinicians in a local TB program setting. | | | | |
|2. Describe mechanisms for communication and application of WGS results for outbreak |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|detection and investigation in a local TB program setting. | | | | |
|3. Summarize, through case studies, how WGS results can be used to support or refute |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|transmission and prioritize investigation among patients clustered by conventional | | | | |
|genotyping methods. | | | | |
|Use of Whole Genome Sequencing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to Support Findings in a|( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Contact Investigation – Heidi Behm | | | | |
|Describe three ways that the use of whole genome sequencing (WGS) can augment routine| | | | |
|contact investigation (CI) to improve CI efficiencies and outcomes. | | | | |
Comments:
Bias
Were each of the presentations listed below free from bias? Please respond for each session you attended and describe any bias you noticed in the comments box.
| |Free from |Not free from|Did not attend |
| |bias |bias | |
|A, C, G, TB: A Gentle Introduction to the Wonderful World of TB Whole Genome |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Sequencing – Jennifer Gardy | | | |
|Advances in Predictive Value of Sequencing for Drug Susceptibility Testing – Derrick |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Crook | | | |
|Update on Universal Whole Genome Sequencing at the National Tuberculosis Molecular |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Surveillance Center – Jamie Posey | | | |
|Implementation of Universal Whole-Genome Sequencing for Detection of Drug Resistance |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|and Epidemiologic Investigation in a Local Tuberculosis Program Setting – Jillian | | | |
|Knorr | | | |
|Use of Whole Genome Sequencing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to Support Findings in a|( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Contact Investigation – Heidi Behm | | | |
Comments on General Session IV:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
[pic]
General Session V: Laboratory Round Table
Objectives
At the end of each presentation, participants should be able to meet the objective or objectives for that presentation or session. Please review the objectives below and indicate whether each objective was fully met, partially met or not met.
| |Fully met |Partially met |Not met |Did not attend |
|Interferon Gamma Release Assay for Laboratory Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis|( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Infection – Daphne Ware | | | | |
|Describe the latest developments in interferon gamma release assays to improve the | | | | |
|laboratory diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection. | | | | |
|Operational Considerations, the IGRAs in 2019 – Wendy Thanassi |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Explain operational considerations and platform updates regarding interferon gamma | | | | |
|release assays. | | | | |
|Testing for TB Infection: Clinical Scenarios – Michelle Haas |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Describe the different approaches to interpreting interferon gamma release assay | | | | |
|results for tuberculosis to improve diagnosis in a serial screening program and an | | | | |
|ambulatory clinic setting. | | | | |
|Agreement of QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus with QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube, T-SPOT. TB |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|and the Tuberculin Skin Test for Latent Tuberculosis Infection – Thara Venkatappa | | | | |
|Explain how QFT-Plus performs in comparison with QFT-GIT, TST, and TSPOT as evidence | | | | |
|to consider when choosing tests and interpreting their results in patients. | | | | |
Comments:
Bias
Were each of the presentations listed below free from bias? Please respond for each session you attended and describe any bias you noticed in the comments box.
| |Free from |Not free from|Did not attend |
| |bias |bias | |
|Interferon Gamma Release Assay for Laboratory Detection of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis|( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Infection – Daphne Ware | | | |
|Operational Considerations, the IGRAs in 2019 – Wendy Thanassi |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Testing for TB Infection: Clinical Scenarios – Michelle Haas |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Agreement of QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus with QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube, T-SPOT. TB |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|and the Tuberculin Skin Test for Latent Tuberculosis Infection – Thara Venkatappa | | | |
Comments on General Session V:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
[pic]
General Session VI: The Changing Landscape of TB Screening and LTBI Treatment Among Healthcare Personnel
Objectives
At the end of each presentation, participants should be able to meet the objective or objectives for that presentation or session. Please review the objectives below and indicate whether each objective was fully met, partially met or not met.
Please indicate below if the objective was met.
| |Fully met |Partially met |Not met |Did not attend |
|Recommendations for Tuberculosis Screening, Testing and Treatment of Healthcare |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Personnel, United States, 2019 – Lynn Sosa | | | | |
|Describe the latest recommendations for TB screening and testing of healthcare | | | | |
|personnel to reduce unnecessary TB testing. | | | | |
|MMWR 2019 Recommendations for TB Screening, Testing and Treatment of HCP the |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Companion: Who, What, Where, When and Why?– Wendy Thanassi | | | | |
|1. Explain that the purpose of the Companion Guide is to assist with implementation | | | | |
|of changes in TB testing of HCP to reduce unnecessary TB testing and increase LTBI | | | | |
|treatment completion and will be available via ACOEM and NTCA. | | | | |
|2. Describe the evidence and context for these changes to reduce unnecessary TB |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|testing. | | | | |
|LTBI in Healthcare Personnel (HCP) – Melanie Swift |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|1. Explain how to address factors that make healthcare personnel (HCP) reluctant to | | | | |
|accept treatment for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) to increase LTBI treatment | | | | |
|completion. | | | | |
|2. Describe clinical strategies to optimize LTBI treatment acceptance and adherence |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|in HCP to increase LTBI treatment completion. | | | | |
|Tuberculosis Contact Investigations Conducted in Adult Daycare and Senior Centers in |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|New York City, 2011-2018 – Hannah Jordan | | | | |
|Describe the yield of tuberculosis contact investigations (TB CI) conducted in | | | | |
|congregate settings frequented by community-dwelling older adults as lessons learned | | | | |
|to facilitate efficiencies and positive outcomes if faced with TB CI in a similar | | | | |
|congregate population. | | | | |
Comments:
Bias
Were each of the presentations listed below free from bias? Please respond for each session you attended and describe any bias you noticed in the comments box.
| |Free from |Not free from|Did not attend |
| |bias |bias | |
|Recommendations for Tuberculosis Screening, Testing and Treatment of Healthcare |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Personnel, United States, 2019 – Lynn Sosa | | | |
|MMWR 2019 Recommendations for TB Screening, Testing and Treatment of HCP the |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Companion: Who, What, Where, When and Why?– Wendy Thanassi | | | |
|LTBI in Healthcare Personnel (HCP) – Melanie Swift |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Tuberculosis Contact Investigations Conducted in Adult Daycare and Senior Centers in |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|New York City, 2011-2018 – Hannah Jordan | | | |
Comments on General Session VI:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
[pic]
Conference Closing
Objectives
At the end of each presentation, participants should be able to meet the objective or objectives for that presentation or session. Please review the objectives below and indicate whether each objective was fully met, partially met or not met.
| |Fully met |Partially met |Not met |Did not attend |
|Division of TB Elimination Remarks – Phil LoBue |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Explain the current and potential future opportunities for domestic TB programs as | | | | |
|defined by the CDC DTBE to implement effective program strategies to advance TB | | | | |
|control and elimination. | | | | |
|Official Passing of the NTCA Presidential Gavel and Closing Remarks – Julie Higashi |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Describe the NTCA priorities for the next year developed to support opportunities and| | | | |
|challenges facing domestic TB programs and the role NTCA plays in supporting domestic| | | | |
|TB programs to progress toward TB elimination in the United States. | | | | |
Comments:
Bias
Were each of the presentations listed below free from bias? Please respond for each session you attended and describe any bias you noticed in the comments box.
| |Free from |Not free from|Did not attend |
| |bias |bias | |
|Division of TB Elimination Remarks and Treatment of Healthcare Personnel, United |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|States, 2019 – Phil LoBue | | | |
|Official Passing of the NTCA Presidential Gavel and Closing Remarks – Julie Higashi |( ) |( ) |( ) |
Comments on Conference Closing:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
[pic]
General Comments
What is your overall rating for the 2019 National TB Conference?
( ) 5 - Excellent
( ) 4 - Good
( ) 3 - Average
( ) 2 - Fair
( ) 1 - Poor
Is the information provided in this meeting likely to lead you to change your practice?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) Unsure
( ) Not Applicable
Please describe the changes below.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What did you like most about the 2019 National TB Conference?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What did you like least about the 2019 National TB Conference?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What improvements do you suggest for the 2020 National TB Conference?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What topics and presenters do you suggest for the 2020 National TB Conference?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
The Conference Program, Facilities, and Services
Select the number that reflects your rating of each aspect of the conference--its educational program, facilities, and services:
5=Excellent; 4=Good; 3=Average; 2=Fair; 1=Poor.
| |5: Excellent |4: Good |3: Average |2: Fair |1: Poor |
|Relevance of the program |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Degree to which the program met my expectations |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Degree to which the program met my learning objectives |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Opportunity to interact with other participants |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Credibility of the program and its lack of bias |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Organization of the program |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Amount of time for discussion |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Location of the hotel |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Guest accommodations |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Meeting rooms |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Audiovisuals |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Food and beverage |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
|Registration process |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |( ) |
What is the single most important idea or piece of information you are taking back to share or investigate further for possible implementation in your program?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
What additional ideas or information that you learned/heard during this meeting are most likely to help you improve your program’s performance?
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Please share any comments or suggestions regarding conference materials.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
[pic]
Evaluation Review and Submission
We appreciate your working your way through the evaluation of the 2019 National TB Conference and the section meetings. Please save the email form under your last name and email the saved form to Jennifer Kanouse at jkanouse@. You will receive an email confirmation at the address you provided in the evaluation.
Thank you for completing the evaluation form and for taking the time to provide your feedback.
[pic]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.