THE SENATE
PATHWAY APPROVAL REPORT
(Core and/or Franchised Provision)
A confirmed report of the event held on 3 March 2009 to consider
the approval of the following pathways:
PG Dip High Intensity Psychological Therapies
Faculty of Health & Social Care
Delivery of Pathways at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge,
Chelmsford & Peterborough
Quality Assurance Division
SECTION A – OUTCOME SUMMARY
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The purpose of the event was to consider the approval of the PG Dip High Intensity
Psychological Therapies.
1.2
The pathway will be located in the Mental Health & Learning Disabilities Programme,
Department of Mental Health & Learning Disabilities in the Faculty of Health & Social Care.
2.
CONCLUSIONS
2.1
The Panel recommends to the Senate the approval of the following pathway:

PG Dip High Intensity Psychological Therapies
Approval, once confirmed, will be for an indefinite period, subject to Anglia Ruskin’s
continuing quality assurance procedures.
Delivery will be full-time study with a minimum/maximum cohort size of 10-30 per intake.
2.2
The Panel recommends to the Senate the approval of 3 new modules for delivery. The full
titles of all new modules are provided in section D of this report.
2.3
Conditions
Approval is subject to the following conditions which were set by the Panel. A copy of the
response must be lodged with the Executive Officer by the date(s) detailed below:
2.3.1
2.4
Details of Condition
Deadline
Response to
be considered
by
The Proposal Team shall review and resubmit
the PSF and MDFs to ensure amendments are
made in line with the Technical Report and the
discussions held at the Approval Event.
2 April 2009
Chair,
Technical
Officer &
Executive
Officer
Recommendations
The following recommendations for quality enhancement were made by the Panel. A copy
of the responses to the recommendations listed below must be lodged with the Executive
Officer. The Faculty Board for the Faculty of Health & Social Care will consider the
responses at its meeting of 1 June 2009:
2.4.1
Details of Recommendation
It is recommended that the Proposal Team provides a more user
friendly Student Handbook which includes specific references to:


Quality Assurance Division
Deadline
27 April 2009
The Proposal Team’s research interests/connections to
teaching ; and
Details of who students contact in any difficult situations.
2
Confirmed
2.5
Issues Referred to the Senate (or appropriate standing committee)
The Panel did not identify any institution-wide issues requiring the attention of the Senate
or the appropriate standing committee of the Senate:
Quality Assurance Division
3
Confirmed
SECTION B – DETAIL OF DISCUSSION AND PANEL CONCLUSIONS
3
RATIONALE
3.1
The Mental Health & Learning Disabilities department at Anglia Ruskin had been
commissioned by the East of England Strategic Health Authority to develop and deliver a
PG Dip High Intensity Psychological Therapies. The development of the pathway was part
of the Department of Health’s national strategy to improve access to psychological
therapies for people who have a mental illness. A contract had been agreed with the
Strategic Health Authority (SHA) that between 20-30 students would commence on the
pathway in April 2009 with further intakes in September 2009 and April 2010.
3.2
It was noted that this proposal would form part of the post-graduate portfolio of the Faculty
of Health and Social Care and enhances the psychological therapies profile of the Mental
Health and Learning Disabilities Department.
4
CURRICULUM DESIGN, CONTENT AND DELIVERY
4.1
A discussion took place regarding the use of the word ‘competency’ in relation to study at
level 4: whether it appropriately reflected, in academic terms, the required level of
attainment. The Proposal Team explained that it is a term referred to in the national
curriculum and is understood by the industry as highly skilled and knowledgeable but
appreciated it might not necessarily appear so to others. With regard to the Learning
Outcomes (LOs), the Proposal Team was confident that these reflected the appropriate
academic level but in order to re-assure the Panel it was agreed that these would be
reviewed accordingly.
4.2
The Proposal Team confirmed that it was appropriate to have the initial module
Fundamentals of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy set at level 4, as in addition to core
competencies for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy being included on this module, students
would also be expected to demonstrate a high level of critical engagement/analysis.
4.3
The entry requirements detailed in box 17 of the PSF were raised and it was agreed that it
would be useful to add some examples of what constitutes relevant previous experience
and training, as it was not clear that a candidate would need to have both academic and
practical experience. In terms of the actual selection process, it was noted that joint
interviews involving the Trust and Anglia Ruskin would take place but that Anglia Ruskin
would be able to use its academic judgement to decline entry to the pathway any applicant
it considered unsuitable.
4.4
The Panel felt that the ethical issues/challenges relating to the subject had not come
through sufficiently in the documentation.
In particular, the Panel had concerns
surrounding the consent and confidentiality aspects associated with using patients. Whilst
the Proposal Team sought to provide the Panel with the re-assurance it was looking for, the
Panel considered that further information was necessary. Accordingly, the Proposal Team
was asked to provide further information detailing such issues which should include the
Proposal Team’s stance on the various aspects and how these will be put into practice.
[Executive Officer’s Note: Subsequent to the approval event, additional information in
relation to ethical issues/challenges was provided by the Proposal Team Leader which was
reviewed by the Panel, all of whom who agreed it adequately addressed the concerns
raised at the approval event.]
4.5
The need to have ‘pre-requisites’ was raised as the Panel noted that this could have an
impact on a student who failed at the first attempt and, as such, would not be allowed to
start the next module. It was agreed that it would be more appropriate to use ‘Pathways to
which this module is restricted’ in box 5 of the PSF. In addition, this would also protect
Quality Assurance Division
4
Confirmed
against any of the pathway modules being used as stand-alone, as previous experience
and/or engagement in the field of CBT was considered essential in order to undertake
these modules.
4.6
The monitoring of the relationship between Anglia Ruskin and the placement provider and
contingency strategies were explored. The Proposal Team advised the Panel that the
pathway leader would have regular meetings with placement supervisors and students to
ensure the process was working smoothly. Also, each Trust has a lead that the pathway
leader would work and meet with. In respect of mentors, it was noted that those acting in
this capacity would have met certain national standards i.e. be accredited, although not
necessarily the mentorship qualification, and that in preparation for their role, would be
required to undertake a two-day workshop followed by ongoing support from the pathway
leader. The Panel was of the view that the Proposal Team would benefit form having in
place a clear and robust statement detailing the relationship between the Trusts and Anglia
Ruskin in relation to this pathway which should include protocol for monitoring quality
assurance and, where necessary, remediation on any or all aspects of student placement
experience and that these should also be appropriately referenced in the Student
Handbook. The comment was duly noted by the Proposal Team. [Executive Officer’s
Note: Subsequent to the approval event, additional information detailing the roles and
responsibilities in relation to clinical supervision in placement for the pathway was provided
by the Proposal Team and met with the Panel’s satisfaction.]
4.7
The Panel noted the various teaching and learning methods to be used on the pathway, in
particular the strategies for classroom teaching of cognitive behavioural therapy. It was felt
that the combination of academia and practice is a good model for employer engagement.
4.8
The Panel asked whether any thought had been given as to how best to gauge the success
of the pathway, as the Proposal Team would have the tools available to audit this. It was
felt this could make a very interesting project, possibly linking into a research project e.g.
evaluating the outcomes. The suggestion was duly noted by the Proposal Team.
5
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
5.1
The Proposal Team was advised that under Anglia Ruskin’s Academic Regulations all
elements of assessments have to be competed with the module. It was therefore not
possible for the ‘portfolio’ element of assessment to run over the 3 modules yet only be
submitted for formal marking at the end of the pathway. The Panel noted that to become
BABCP accredited, student would be required to provide, amongst other things, a portfolio
of evidence. Accordingly, the Panel suggested the ‘portfolio’ element on each of the MDFs
be changed to a ‘professional learning log’ which would be assessed on a pass/fail basis
as part of module and, at the end of the pathway, the 3 professional learning logs could be
combined to make up the portfolio, thus meeting the BABCP requirements. It was agreed
that the Proposal Team would make the necessary changes.
5.2
A discussion took place regarding the modules Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Anxiety
Disorder and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Depression with the Panel seeking
clarification as to whether these were discrete modules given that the assessments and
LOs appeared almost identical. The Proposal Team was able to demonstrate to the
Panel’s satisfaction that the two clinical conditions were very different on a conceptual
basis but that in terms of the LOs there would be similarity and, as such, two separate
modules were necessary. It was also noted that both MDFs should contain the same
detailed description as regards ‘clinical audio tape & portfolio’ in box 9 - Assessment.
5.3
Further discussion took place regarding the modules Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for
Anxiety Disorder and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Depression in relation to the
Quality Assurance Division
5
Confirmed
different learning (intellectual, practical, affective & transferable skills) a student would
achieve when progressing from one to the other. The Proposal Team confirmed that the
clinical skills are quite different, as are the clinical measurements. Also, a student would be
made aware of the different types of diagnostic schemes. The Panel noted the response.
5.4
The Panel was keen to know more about the CTS-R assessment grading tool which would
be used to assess the practice portfolio. The Proposal Team explained that it is a nationally
recognised tool which uses a scale of 0-6, with 6 equalling excellent, and that for this
pathway, the proposed minimum standard level would be 3. The Panel questioned
whether level 3 of the tool would appropriately reflect academic level 4 attainment and
requested further clarification from the Proposal Team. [Executive Officer’s Note:
Subsequent to the approval event, the Proposal Team provided sufficient supporting
information which confirmed that the criteria to be used for assessment would be framed in
such a way that would make them unambiguously consistent with Anglia Ruskin’s level 4
expectations.]
5.5
The Panel was provided with a written rationale from the Proposal Team as to why a higher
minimum qualifying mark of 40% should be permitted for all modules on the pathway. The
Panel accepted the rationale, which was as follows:




The pathway is part of the National Curriculum that requires practitioners to
demonstrate high levels of competency and evidence based practice. This is required
in order to achieve ‘public protection’ as defined for example in the Nursing & Midwifery
Councils Professional Standards;
Comparable HEIs have a qualifying mark of 40% for this type of pathway e.g. graduate
worker;
The contract placed with Anglia Ruskin University by the Strategic Health Authority
requires the Department to fully comply with the National curriculum and the expected
standards contained therein;
The qualifying mark of 40% is the sector standard for courses teaching practical skills in
cognitive behavioural therapy.
5.6
The Panel commended the Proposal Team on its use of the Harvard Referencing system
throughout the documentation.
6
STAFFING, LEARNING RESOURCES AND STUDENT SUPPORT
6.1
The Proposal Team confirmed that there was sufficient resource in terms of teaching and
learning and that it had the support of the Faculty.
7
DOCUMENTATION
7.1
The Panel recommended the Proposal Team provide a more user friendly version of the
Student Handbook (Recommendation 2.4.1).
7.2
The Proposal Team was advised that the Technical Report would be distributed with the
Outcome Report and would list the technical and other changes required to the PSF and
MDFs, in addition those discussed at the event. It was noted that these would need to be
submitted electronically to the Technical Officer. (Condition 2.3.1)
Quality Assurance Division
6
Confirmed
8
CONFIRMATION OF STANDARDS OF AWARDS
8.1
The Panel confirmed that the proposed PG Dip High Intensity Psychological Therapies
pathway satisfied the University’s Academic Regulations with regard to the definitions and
academic standards of Anglia Ruskin awards and, hence, the QAA’s Framework for Higher
Education Qualifications.
DRAFT
UNCONFIRMED
CONFIRMED
FILE REF
OFFICE FILE REF
Quality Assurance Division
7
6 April 2009
6 April 2009
date report agreed as confirmed
Confirmed
SECTION C – DETAILS OF PANEL MEMBERSHIP AND PROPOSAL TEAM
Internal Panel Members:
Chris Curran (Chair)
Head of Department, Educational Studies &
Director of Studies,
Faculty of Education
Lorna O’Reilly
Head of Department - Acute Care
Faculty of Health & Social Care
External Panel Members:
Dr. Victoria Galbraith
Senior Lecturer,
Psychology & Health Sciences
University of Worcester
Andy Peel
Senior Lecturer, School of Health
University of Northampton
Executive Officer:
Sara Elliott
Faculty Quality Assurance Officer
Quality Assurance Division, Academic Office
Technical Officer:
Alex Toole,
Academic Regulations Officer
Quality Assurance Division, Academic Office
Members of Proposal Team:
Steve Wood
Head of Department, Mental Health & Learning Disabilities
Faculty of Health & Social Care
Sue Kerr
Deputy Head & Programme Leader,
Department of Mental Health & Learning Disabilities
Faculty of Health & Social Care
Jo Trosh
Senior Lecturer in Mental Health
Department of Mental Health & Learning Disabilities
Faculty of Health & Social Care
Lisa Palmer
Principal Cognitive Behaviour Therapist
Oxford Cognitive Therapy Centre
David Westbrook
Consultant Clinical Psychologist
Director, Oxford Cognitive Therapy Centre
Quality Assurance Division
8
Confirmed
SECTION D – OUTCOME DATA
Programme
Department
Faculty
Collaborative Partner
New/amended Awards
Approved (nb intended awards
Mental Health & Learning Disabilities
Mental Health & Learning Disabilities
Faculty of Health & Social Care
Title(s) of Named Pathway(s)
Attendance mode
and duration
High Intensity Psychological Therapies
Full-time
only, not intermediate awards)
PG Dip
Validating body (if not Anglia Ruskin University)
Professional body accreditation
Proposal Team Leader
Month and Year of the first intake
Standard intake points
Maximum and minimum student numbers
Date of first Conferment of Award(s)
Any additional/specialised wording to appear on
transcript and/or award certificate
Date of next scheduled Periodic Review
Awards and Titles to be deleted (with month/year of last
regular conferment)
Steve Woods
April 2009
30-10
NEW MODULES APPROVED
DO430025S - Fundamentals of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
DO445001S - Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Anxiety Disorders
DO445002S - Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Depression
Quality Assurance Division
9
Confirmed