Table 4:

Nine-month post-symposium survey: medium-term spread outcomes^*

Quantitative survey items (closed-ended questions)		Qualitative survey items (open-ended questions)
Item	n (%)†	Summary of responses and comments
Innovators (n = 23 respondents)
Innovation has been spread to new context(s)		Innovation spread: Many teams preparing for spread Innovation being adapted to new contexts No innovation spread or don’t know: Lack of resources hindered spread Difficult to keep track of spread
Yes	9 (39)
Not yet, but in progress	3 (13)
No	7 (30)
Don’t know	2 (9)
Missing or not applicable	2 (9)
Symposium sparked other new ideas, opportunities or projects		New ideas sparked by symposium: Useful networking and new collaborations Stimulated discussions on new projects Ideas for knowledge translation Ideas for new resources for innovations No new ideas sparked by symposium: Too busy and lack of time for new ideas
Yes	11 (48)
No	12 (52)
Clinical leads (n = 25 respondents)
Adopted 1 or more symposium innovations		Reason for not having adopted an innovation: Not adopted yet, but ongoing conversations on possible implementation Lack of resources to implement innovation Competing priorities and change fatigue (e.g., new electronic medical record)
Yes	18 (72)
If yes, degree to which it is perceived to have improved the primary health care team’s experience, mean ± SD‡	6.89 ± 2.00
If yes, degree to which it is perceived to have improved the patient experience, mean ± SD‡	6.32 ± 2.8
No	7 (28)
Symposium sparked other new ideas, opportunities or projects		New ideas sparked by symposium: New interest in working with patient partners and improving patient experience No new ideas sparked by symposium: Lack of time and resources to innovate Change fatigue and competing priorities
Yes	15 (60)
No	10 (40)

Note: SD = standard deviation.

^*Dragon-Facilitators were not surveyed at 9 months.

^†Unless indicated otherwise.

^‡0 = not at all likely, 10 = extremely likely.