71 Evaluation of MCD sessions Figure 1. MCD evaluation by participants, after the series, in rounded averages General evaluation of single MCD sessions Table 1 shows results from the single-MCD-evaluation forms, as mean scores of all participants. Not all items were asked of both participants and facilitators. Positive evaluations are seen about how the quality of the content of the case discussion was experienced and on the interest of participants. In qualitative data, facilitators and participants stated how they perceived participants as actively and constructively involved. Both often mentioned the openness and vulnerability of participants in expressing views and dilemmas, even when it affected them emotionally. For example, a facilitator said: ‘The dilemma was highly personal and touched the case presenter emotionally. The participant was hesitant to bring it forward but felt enough selfconfidence and respect from others to do so.’ Some facilitators explicitly mentioned that the absence of a team manager in the MCD sessions most likely contributed to an open atmosphere where participants could speak freely. At the same time, some participants stated they missed the presence of the team manager since their contribution to the decision-making process could help, e.g., to ‘make the decisions more effective’. Facilitators stated that the decision-making would be more effective if managers and the organization paid more attention to the results of MCD sessions and addressed them on several levels in the organization. Table 1. Evaluation scores per MCD sessions, in rounded averages on a 5- or 10-point scale by MCD participants by MCD facilitators How would you rate the quality of the content of the case discussion? - 7.4 /10 The participants were sufficiently interested 4.2 /5 4.1 /5 It was meaningful to me to discuss the case among others 4.2 /5 - The case discussed was recognizable to me 4.3 /5 - 3