Evaluation Atrial Fibrillation Burden and Timing of Medical Therapy in Patients with Screen-Detected and Clinically-Diagnosed AF Evaluation HMP Education would appreciate your feedback on the quality and impact of this activity.Please answer the following questions, some of which include a 5-point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree/excellent/great deal; 1 = strongly disagree/poor/very little). *Please answer the below question relating to information presented in the proram. A recent meta-analysis of two large, randomized trials (NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESiA) concluded which of the following with regard to whether oral anticoagulation is effective and safe in patients with device-detected AF (also known as subclinical AF or atrial high-rate episodes)? Oral anticoagulation does not reduce the risk of stroke but does increase the risk of major bleeding Oral anticoagulation reduces the risk of stroke but also increases the risk of major bleeding Oral anticoagulation reduces the risk of stroke without increased risk of major bleeding Oral anticoagulation neither reduces the risk of stroke nor increases the risk of major bleeding Did this activity meet your educational needs? Yes No Did this activity increase your competence? Yes No Do you feel like there were any new data presented during this activity? Yes - please explain: No Did you learn anything new? Yes, please specify: No Did you gain confidence in your ability to act on the new information? Yes - please explain: No Did this activity include opportunities to learn as a part of a healthcare team? Yes - please explain: No Please answer the following question using a 5-point likert scale (5 = a great deal, 3 = a modest amount, 1 = nothing at all). How much did you learn as a result of this session? 5 4 3 2 1 Please rate the following components related to this activity using a 5-point likert scale (5 = excellent, 3 = good, 1 = poor). Content 5 4 3 2 1 Relevance to your practice 5 4 3 2 1 Educational format 5 4 3 2 1 Overall 5 4 3 2 1 Please rate the faculty on their knowledge, expertise, and teaching ability (5= excellent, 3 = good, 1 = poor). Rod Passman, MD 5 4 3 2 1 Mina Chung, MD 5 4 3 2 1 Will Cho, PA 5 4 3 2 1 Mohamed Elshazly, MD 5 4 3 2 1 Christopher McGann, MD 5 4 3 2 1 Monique Mones Young, NP 5 4 3 2 1 Jill Schaeffer, MSN, CRNP, CCDS, CEPS, FHRS 5 4 3 2 1 Bassam Wanna, MD 5 4 3 2 1 Brent D. Wilson, MD, PhD 5 4 3 2 1 To what extent were the following learning objectives addressed by this activity (5 = entirely, 3 = moderately, 1 = not at all)? Stimulate consensus building on treatment choices for recurrent arrhythmias pre- and post- ablation, mobile health applications, ablation techniques, mapping, and other current and developing technologies and intervention 5 4 3 2 1 Review the latest and currently developing knowledge of the critical issues around atrial fibrillation and related comorbidities and risks such as strokes, GI, and gastroenterology involvement, and post-ablation bleeding 5 4 3 2 1 Facilitate a focus on new technologies, recent research findings, and new procedures available for improved patient care 5 4 3 2 1 Impact the development and use of procedures and treatments including but not limited to anti-fibrotic drugs, new EP techniques, and other pharmacologic agents 5 4 3 2 1 The information presented in this activity was free of commercial bias. Agree Disagree Do you intend to make any additional changes to your practice as a result of information gained from this activity? Please be specific. Yes, please describe: No Which of the following barriers do you perceive in your efforts to implement practice changes and/or optimize patient care? Select all that apply. No barriers Cost Lack of opportunity/patients Lack of administrative support Insurance/reimbursement issues Lack of consensus or professional guidelines Lack of time to assess/counsel patients Patient compliance issues Not applicable to my practice Other: How might future activities help you address those barriers? 255 characters max Previous
