Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of Thematic Analysis Evaluation Questionnaire completed by OPEP participants following the OPEP program Response rate = 29/29 participants (100%). All evaluations were completed anonymously. Each question had space for a numerical score, and invitation to write comments for specific day etc. Sample questions in the evaluations are included below the table

From: A week long “pep” talk – initial and 2–3-year longitudinal data on the Ottawa Psychiatry Enrichment Program (OPEP)

THEME

SAMPLE COMMENTS

Showed variety of areas of psychiatry

“Gave a great snapshot of different areas of psychiatry”

“Great that we get to see different areas of psychiatry”

“Excellent experience; loved the opportunity to see diversity in field”

“Participating in OPEP was very enlightening and changed some of my previous thoughts regarding what a career in psychiatry would be like.”

High quality of teachers

“Favorite part of OPEP was that preceptors were great at teaching and made for a pleasant experience”

“Dr. X was an excellent mentor and encouraged me to ask questions and peruse my interests in psychosis”

“Fascinating to hear clinical stories. All speakers were clearly passionate about their field.”

Organization & Logistics

“Very well organized”

“Ensure physicians have afternoons with patients”

Diversity of Speakers

“Resident panel was most likely the most useful since it is the stage we are closest at.”

“Loved having the opportunity to chat with residents in a casual way during lunch.”

“Client stories were great; loved the patient panel”

Content of Program

“Add more basic content to teach other skills in psychiatry.”

“It may be good to have a psychiatrist who has focus on post partum depression, perinatal issues, eating disorders; [this] is an area I would have been interested to learn more about.”

“Would be great to see ECT conducted”

“Would have been good to learn more about the residency program, and matching to residency programs”

  1. 1. On a scale of 1–5, 5 being excellent and 1 being extremely poor, please rate:
  2. a) Setting (program organization, orientation, met objectives, met expectations, comfort)
  3. b) Food (rated for each day of the program)
  4. c) Lectures (rated for each day of the program, separated by lecturer)
  5. d) Observership (rated for each day)
  6. 2. What did we do that was RIGHT? (open ended question)
  7. 3. What do we need to IMPROVE and how can we do that? (open ended question)