Background Material for December 7 Conference Call - Alliance for ...

Speaker from Penn was a little inflammatory
Could not hear Dr. Brater speak
It was great to hear and see Dr. Brader speak. I found David Nash pompous and condescending.
Boring. You don’t need to tell this group that patient safety is paramount and that humans make errors. We
are front line on the floors supervising trainees. Also couldn’t hear Dr. Brater well at all--microphone
issue?
The keynote discussion if industry sponsorship disgusted me. POOR CHOICE!!!!
David Nash - provocative, very clearly stated goals and easy to understand. Practical solutions were stated
clearly and I agree with the emphasis on improving safety.
Good overview on quality and compliance
First speaker was monotnous and hard to hear. Second speaker was great. It would be nice to have their
names and topics listed for accuracy
Initial part of the talk was very long.
David Nash gave an excellent talk
Was apleasure to hear Dr Nash.
David Nash gave an inspiring speech
Really enjoyed hearing from David Nash.
Overall good, but I was a bit shocked by the speakers unabashed PLUG for the ELI LILLY
CORPORATION, which seemed inappropriate. A bit more flash than substance, than I would have liked
re: policy implications.
Nash was outstanding, the other speaker was not.
Had a bit of a hard time hearing Dr. Brater. the speaker from Jeff was excellent
Dr. Nash is an outstanding speaker. He is dynamic, articulate, and presents thoughtful ideas. I was
bothered by his advertisement for Lilly at the end of the presentation. I found that disturbing and in
addition he did not list Lilly on his disclosure form. Otherwise, great talk.
Main speaker was great. We came away very enthusiastic and invigorated
Health Reform, What Do Learners Need to KNow? by Dr. David Asch. Dr. Asche was an outstanding
motivational speaker. I took notes and will be using his points to inform a Health Policy Interest Group.
Wonderful to attend an engaging plenary session without powerpoint slides. very clear, precise.
unfortunate phrasing and choice of words at the end, implying that increased #’s of women in medicine,
along with things like duty hours and other new “lifestyle” adjustments, are something that we’ll have to
endure as a profession, as if it’s a burden. Shame on you Dr. Nash, you know better!
I thought that the controversy presented about quality and the organization’s goals was interesting and
pertinent to the organization. the issue about whether we should attempt a national influence at the expense
of a quality or member needs agenda is a difficult leadership question.
Stump speech that was rewarmed for this lunch. Glib and pithy. Good framework, but lacks street
credibility, to my view. Nash summarily discounted Jefferson’s ability to mimic Geisinger. This bias
obviated any message he would have otherwise conveyed
Great speaker
Dr. Brater’s content was good, but he should work on delivery. For example, increased awareness of
cadence and tone would improve audience attention span. Dr. Nash is a very dynamic speaker, and he
brought up good points, but his approach was controversial, with less regard to eliminating bias from his
message.
Although I agree with 99% of what Dr. Nash had to say, I felt like rather than starting a great debate as
many of his comments could have, we instead heard the very insightful comments of a very smart
antagonist individual; I’m sorry he feels so all alone in the pursuit of excellence
Plenary sessions, in general, are neither rich nor transformative. This one proved to be no exception.
Acoustics and visuals need improvement. couldn’t hear from everywhere and couldn’t see from
everywhere
The keynote discussion if industry sponsorship disgusted me. POOR CHOICE!!!!
Academic Internal Medicine Week 2009 Evaluation Summary Page 3