Maguire Training Reviews

The overall structure and message of the workshop was good and a valuable session to have been delivered and shows that CGTC is responsive to employee engagement surveys. Putting this particular element of feedback in to practice was reactive and perhaps highlight CGTC as being a reactive employer rather than conscious or conscientious as an employer. Given time and resource this could have been improved by delivering to smaller groups over a longer time frame starting with the areas of the business that scored lower in the engagement survey, addressing the specific points of feedback that were received. Since the sessions were booked in, and over the course of the last week since they began, I have heard comments from people that it came across as a tick-box exercise to address the feedback. To combat this, follow up calls could be arranged 6-8 weeks after the initial call to find out what people have done with the commitments they made at the end of this session to improve communication and see what changes have come from it. Whilst 'intention - impact' is part of the Company Induction for new starters, this could be fleshed out into its own workshop as part of new-starter onboarding / post-probation onboarding

Challenging conversations goes far beyond 'breaking bad news'. There are more common and challenging conversations everyday with difficult patients, colleagues etc. These should be discussed

But I feel it should include other scenarios of difficult conversations in medical practice. Angry patient, dissatisfied patient, line manager behaving badly etc Being assertive etc

Very good interactions between colleagues. Good facilitation by Claire.

See above - would like more challenging situations!

the only reason i have rated this between 3 and 4 rating is due to I felt this session would have been better face to face and for us to work through real examples as a group with Sam's input into the conversations and how we could improve our questioning technique when setting goals and actions.

The virtual modality didn't seem necessary for the goals of the session since there was not an opportunity to apply the tools for our context. Reading about the tools could have been sufficient and could have been completed asynchronously/individually. Note that providing reading materials would be necessary so that there is a common understanding across the team*. Synchronous time could be prioritized instead for guided application/practice of the tools in our context. While the session led to an awareness of the tools it will be through application that the team will actually learn. Suggest that the trainer understand the shift for our group and the dynamics of those participating. We are not joining from multiple organizations so that customization could be included in the training. For example, when discussing stakeholders we could skip to a focus on working with internal stakeholders in a matrix setting since that is the reason we are attending. *Many of the tools were not new to me but, even so, I would benefit from a review and clear guidance on each through the provided reading.

Good slides. Thank you.

The trainer is engaging. Lots of examples are shared

I felt like during the exercise around determining the 5 targets and the AI approach to whether they were SMART or not would have benefitted a lot from the trainer inputting - on screen via a slide - an example of how one or more of those targets could have been made SMART, rather than an AI approach of what might look "smarter" but still not SMART. Breakout sessions were useful, especially the later ones where we were one-on-one. I would consider reducing the amount of time on this training as well. 3 hours is a long time and feel like it would've benefitted either from being fully separate sessions based on targets and feedback or being a little truncated.