IRPA13 Glasgow

Refresher Course Feedback

October 2012

Rachel SmithICPC Scientific Secretary

IRPA13 Refresher Course Feedback

1. Refresher Courses

IRPA13 had an ambitious programme of 25 refresher courses, five each morning of the Congress, from 8:00 - 8:55am prior to the main scientific sessions. The courses were popular, with around 640 delegates registered. Typical registrations per course were in the region of 25, with the most popular having over 50. See Table 1 for details of courses, lecturers and registration numbers.

2. Source of Feedback

Feedback from those attending the courses was obtained by using the IRPA Education and Training Activities - Evaluation Form. These forms were provided to those attending the majority of the courses. Unfortunately, due to organizational problems, forms were not provided for a number of courses and a significant fraction of the evaluation forms were not collected. In addition, of those collected a proportion was not useable for course specific feedback as it was unclear to which course they referred. In an attempt to improve the feedback, following the Congress all those registered on Refresher Courses were emailed the Evaluation Form and asked to provide comments. This approach did not prove very successful in obtaining additional feedback. Overall we obtained around 115 completed forms. Of those approximately 25 could not be connected to a particular course and so although of use in relation to overall feedback were of no use in relation to specific courses. Sufficient forms were received to give specific feedback on only 12 of the courses. In producing this report, information from the forms was supplemented by comments on the Refresher Courses obtained from other sources, in particular, the Congress Delegate Survey questionnaire (see Annex A).

3. Refresher Course Evaluation

The majority of the Evaluation Forms identified courses as 4 (good) or 5 (excellent). Detailed course specific comments are provided at Annex B. These will be of interest to those developing courses at future Congresses. There were few negative comments related to the level of the courses, with the possible exception of RC1: Biological effects of ionizing radiation. Some comments on this course indicated delegates found it very technical and research based. The comments seem to indicate that the participants were not experts in the area but wanted an overview and update on the current key issues in relation to biological effects of ionizing radiation. Courses on this subject are always very popular at the IRPA Congresses so this need to focus on level is important to note for future events. There were no comments relating to additional suggested course subjects so it would seem that the programme addressed the main interests of the delegates. In the event 24 courses were provided with one cancelled due to illness

Course registrations as at 9/5/2012

2

The main issue which resulted in negative comments was that of the provision of course materials. A significant number of delegates expressed some disappointment at the lack of course handouts/notes. We gave the providers a choice as to whether they provided notes but perhaps in retrospect it would have been better to make this mandatory. Delegates also requested the ppt presentations. Whilst some provided them there were issues with a couple of courses where the presenters would not agree to the use of their prepared materials. The majority of the course presentations will however appear as part of the Congress ‘electronic; proceedings.

4. Conclusions

In general those attending seemed happy with the courses provided. However, there are a couple of learning points for future Congress organizers:

Detailed consideration needs to be given to the timely provision of course notes/handouts for Refresher Course attendees

Efficient collection of feedback from Refresher Course attendees at such an event is logistically complex but very important in relation to on-going efforts to improve the quality of the training provided. Insufficient effort was expended at the planning stage resulting in confusion regarding who was providing and collecting the forms. This is an important issue to get right for future Congresses.

Although only a minor issue, the ease of collection of the course evaluation information would be improved if the IRPA Education and Training Activities - Evaluation Form were amended to include (preferably at the top of the page) a space in which the attendee is required to fill in the course name.

Table 1 IRPA13 Refresher Courses

3

Course No.

Title Trainer Attendees

RC1 Biological effects (including non-cancer effects)

Dr Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff, USA

56

RC2 Use of the INES scale to communicate the safety significance of nuclear or radiological events

Dr Cynthia Jones, USA 33

RC3 Radiation detriment: evolution of its estimation and its role in the RP system

Dr Thierry Schneider, France

36

RC4 Optical radiation safety Mr John O’Hagan, UK 14

RC5 Design of medical facilities: radiotherapy shielding design

Dr Roger Harrison, UK 28

RC6 Conducting effective stakeholder involvement

Dr Helen Grogan, US 19

RC7 Internal dosimetry Dr George Etherington, UK

27

RC8 Training workers in RP for a safer work environment

Mrs Vivra Nilsson, Sweden

33

RC9 EMF measurements for health and risk assessment

Dr Carolina Calderon and Mr Darren Addison,UK

20

RC10 Protection issues for novel radionuclide therapies

Wendy Waddington, UK 29

RC11 Supporting stakeholder needs for information and facts

Brooke Rogers, UK 12

RC12 Radiation protection in NORM industries

Karin Wichterey, Germany

31

RC13 Safety and security in the transport of radioactive materials

Steve Whittingham, UK 28

RC14 Considerations in estimating public doses from nuclear facilities

Ms Kelly Jones, UK 33

RC15 Radiation protection and pregnancy in the medical environment

Dr E Osei, Canada 28

RC16 Using new technologies in support of stakeholder involvement

Mr Sven Nagel, Germany

11

RC17 Optimization of RP for the decommissioning of facilities

Mr Pascal Deboodt, Belgium

41

RC18 Introduction to Post Closure Safety Assessment of near-surface disposal facilities

Dr Japie van Blerk, South Africa

11

RC19 Emergency management according to new IAEA BSS

Dr Elena Buglova, IAEA 25

RC20 Radiation protection in interventional procedures

Professor E Vano, Spain

37

RC21 Introduction to Post Closure Safety Assessment of deep geological

Dr Matt Kozak, USA 4

4

disposal facilitiesRC22 External dosimetry

CANCELLED

Mr Rodolfo Cruz, IAEA 17

RC23 Optimisation of radiation protection for radon exposure in homes

Christophe Murith, Switzerland

19

RC24 Protection of the environment Dr David Copplestone, UK

24

RC25 Radiation protection & dosimetry in paediatric CT

Dr Keith Strauss, USAdraft outline.

24

Annex A

5

IRPA13 Delegate Survey – Comments on Refresher Courses

General Comments

Contents of refresher courses I attended focused too much on basic knowledge of the subject

Most were quite good, RC-1 person focused too much on her own advanced work, instead of providing explanation of concepts

Refresher courses should have required a paper like IRPA 12

Best features of Congress

refresher courses and the benefit of it. RC's Refresher courses Refresher courses were infomative and useful.

Worst features of Congress

Refresher course not well attended due to poor availability of speaker biographies and additional info about the course. It also was not searchable on the website

Slides from the refresher courses would have been useful if handed out the time of the course.

Certificates of attendance for the refresher courses would also have been useful .Include the biographies of the Refresher course speakers; require the Refresher course speakers to write a paper, and include all PPT of the courses to pre-registered referhser course participants.

Copy handouts to refresher courses - difficult to follow otherwise. Some of the refresh courses could be interactive, to be exactly more similar

like the workshops. Maybe to have some experimental work as well?

Annex B

6

Refresher Course Specific Feedback

RC1: Biological effects Limited feedback (One Evaluation Form and comments in Delegate Survey)

Comments: RC-1 person focused too much on her own advanced work, instead of providing

explanation of concepts I was disappointed with the content of the course… It was pitched at the research

level rather than at a level appropriate to an interested professional from another field. I was expecting a brief introduction to the biological effects of radiation, leading us gently to a brief summary of the most recent events.

RC2: Use of the INES scale to communicate the safety significance of nuclear or radiological events

No feedback

RC3: Radiation detriment: evolution of its estimation and its role in the RP system 14 Evaluation Forms obtained from attendeesMost marks 4/5 (good/excellent) few 2 (below average)

Comments: Short time – good overview Expected more technical details concerning detriment

RC4: Optical radiation safety11 Evaluation forms obtained from attendeesMost marks 4/5s (good/excellent) few 2 (below average)

Comments: Useful Very Good Very good

RC5: Design of medical facilities: radiotherapy shielding design No feedback

RC6: Conducting effective stakeholder involvement No feedback RC7: Internal dosimetry 12 Evaluation forms obtained from attendeesAll marks 3 (average) or higher with average 4 (good).

Comments: Good course Lecturer professional and pedagogic Could have been longer Ran out of time Very clear! Well presented overview of the basics It would be interesting to have longer course

7

RC8: Training workers in RP for a safer work environment Limited feedback (3 evaluation forms obtained)Marks 4/5 (good/excellent)

Comments:

This was much more accessible Would have been useful to have information on other training environments in

addition to NPPs

RC9: EMF measurements for health and risk assessment13 Evaluation forms obtained from attendeesAll marks 3 or higher, average between 4 and 5 (good/excellent)

Comments: A hands on practical demonstration of conducting a survey Very Good Very Good presentation The tutorial excellent perhaps include a practical exercise Very informative, exactly what I needed Good More time needed The course was superb

RC10: Protection issues for novel radionuclide therapies Limited feedback (One evaluation form) Marks 3/4 (average/good)

Comment:While I enjoyed the content of the lecture, I do think it was a bit misleading to use the word ‘novel’ in the title, since it was more ‘all radionuclide therapies’, and what I really wanted was a lecture with focus on the newer therapies.

RC11: Supporting stakeholder needs for information and facts No feedback

RC12: Radiation protection in NORM industries No feedback

RC13: Safety and security in the transport of radioactive materials Limited feedback (One evaluation form) Marks 3/4 (average/good)

Comment: The presented had good verbal skills. However, his presentation overran by 15

minutes … There was little information on security. The presentation materials was not edited for this course and far too much.

RC14: Considerations in estimating public doses from nuclear facilities No feedback

RC15: Radiation protection and pregnancy in the medical environment No feedback

8

RC16: Using new technologies in support of stakeholder involvement 7 Evaluation forms obtained from attendeesAll marks above 3 average 4 (good)

Comments: Would have liked more time to discuss details of each media and implications of

using in RP Needs more time allocated to this subject More applicable to radiation protection stakeholder involvement please

RC17: Optimization of RP for the decommissioning of facilitiesNo feedback RC18: Introduction to Post Closure Safety Assessment of near-surface disposal facilities No feedback

RC19: Emergency management according to new IAEA IBSS 10 Evaluation forms obtained from attendeesAll marks 4/ 5 (good/excellent)

Comments: Very good Helpful Excellent Excellent overview of topic

RC20: Radiation protection in interventional procedures No feedback

RC21: Introduction to Post Closure Safety Assessment of deep geological disposal facilities

No feedback

RC22: External dosimetryCANCELLED

RC23: Optimisation of radiation protection for radon exposure in homes7 Evaluation forms obtained from attendeesMarks all 3 or above generally 4 (good)

Comments: Copy of presentation More interactive – possibly with exercises, experience exchange More about mitigating techniques would have been helpful

RC24: Protection of the environment Limited feedback 3 Evaluation forms obtained from attendeesMarks ¾ (average/good)

Comments: I expected information about calculation of dose and recent regulatory issues The environment refresher was nice to attend, however, … it would have been

much better if it had been better planned

9

The lecturers did not cover topics in as much details as they could have or would have liked. This was probably due to time pressure. The course should (probably) have lasted for 2 hours in order to do the subject justice.

RC25: Radiation protection & dosimetry in paediatric CT No feedback

10