Sheffield Hallam University
Faculty of Health and Wellbeing
Assessment Brief
– RONC Clinical Education 2
Assessment focus
The learning outcomes for this module will be assessed through the submission of a written
Professional Development Clinical Webfolio, via a PebblePAD workspace and completion of associated Practice Competence.
Task 1: The webfolio aims to build upon knowledge and previous clinical experiences, enabling you to reflect upon your personal and professional development, identifying areas for development.
Task 2: The Clinical Competence will be assessed via the completion of the three case discussions, whereby you will be able to evidence your understanding of Radiotherapy terminology, techniques, procedures and policy, demonstrating the links between theory and practice. The average of the three case discussion marks will form your overall Clinical
Competence grade.
Formatively you will be encouraged to complete a series of online e-tivities to include a submission of a draft to support the final written profile submission.
Further information
This is specifically how the learning outcomes are assessed.
1. Reflect, assess and evidence your level of skill in patient care, team working and Radiotherapy practice using appropriate tools including the interprofessional capability framework (assessed via the Professional Development Webfolio).
2. Practice effectively within the Multi-Disciplinary Team demonstrating a holistic approach to the care of service users (assessed via the Professional Development Webfolio)
3. Discuss and evaluate the management of a specified range of case examples from practice
(assessed via the Professional Development webfolio and the case discussions).
4. Demonstrate the required practice competence in the localisation, planning, dose calculations, delivery and verification of a specified range of Radiotherapy techniques (assessed via the
Professional Development Webfolio and the case discussions).
Deadline date for submission
Yet to be confirmed - please refer to your assessment scheduler.
Important notes:
Submissions after this deadline (without a prior agreed extension with the Student Support Officer) may not be marked and you will be referred.
In module retrieval is not available for the webfolio submission. In module retrieval is available for the three case discussions; you will be able to take up to 3 attempts for each case discussion.
You are required to complete both of these tasks with a minimum of 40%.
For further information about SHU assessment regulations, please visit the ‘learning essentials’ tab within shuspace and scroll down to the 'rules and regulations' link at the bottom of the page.
Word limit
The webfolio submission should be approximately 3000 words. This only relates to those parts of the profile where you are showcasing your level 5 skills.

Evidence, reference lists, appendices and figures do not contribute towards the word count.
Presentation
The webfolio should be presented and submitted in PebblePAD.
Figures, diagrams and tables are encouraged in an effort to concisely express data/ideas and improve overall presentation and should be used where appropriate and labelled consistently.
A title/introduction page that includes the course title, module name, date of submission and your name/ student ID must be on the front page.
If you have a learning contract please note this on the first page of the submission.
The SHU Harvard system of referencing must be used (refer to the Library Gateway on shuspace for details)
Marking and feedback
You will receive feedback on your performance in the following ways…
Clinical Placement Formative Feedback
As you develop your clinical skills it is vital that you seek and act on feedback from qualified practitioners who supervise your practice in the clinical department. This processes is facilitated through the completion of the Clinical Placement Report Book and will include both written and verbal feedback.
Verbal peer feedback offers an added dimension to assist in your development. Reflection on the feedback that you receive will be a key element to developing your skills and knowledge in this module.
You will be encouraged to seek feedback from other sources outside of the structure of the module for example clinical staff, peers and your PDF to aid in your reflections on your personal and professional development.
Feedback will be offered on e-tivities and may be given in a number of ways:

e-tivities are shared via pebblePAD allowing initial feedback

Although the e-tivities will not be graded feedback will be given with the intention of enabling individuals to develop and build upon the work submitted so that it feeds forward into the summative assessment

The submission of one draft learning outcome allows the module leader to offer targeted personalised feedback to individuals to support the final submission
Summative
You will receive feedback on your performance, using either written or audio feedback. It will focus on your achievement of the specified assessment criteria and on how you can build upon this further in future academic and clinical development
Two members of the module teaching team to include the module leader will first mark the webfolios; internal cross moderation will then take place of a representative sample. The appointed external examiner will subsequently review a representative sample of the profiles.

Feedback and provisional marks for the webfolio will be returned via the pebblePAD Workspace, normally within 3 weeks of submission. Any variation in this deadline will be communicated to you in advance

Case discussions are carried out by trained clinical assessors, who are moderated annually and receive training from the University; these marks will then be provided through the VLE


Confirmation of all marks will be provided through the VLE following ratification at the Subject
Assessment Board

You will receive feedback on your performance, using either written or audio feedback. It will focus on your achievement of the specified assessment criteria and on how you can build upon this further in future academic and clinical development.

Two members of the module teaching team to include the module leader will first mark the profiles

Internal cross moderation will then take place of a representative sample

The appointed external examiner will subsequently review a representative sample of the profiles
Feedback and provisional marks for both the assignment and the exam will be returned via 'my grades' normally within 15 working days of submission (please refer to online 'assessment diary' via shuspace). Any variation in this deadline will be communicated in advance.
Confirmation of these marks will be provided through 'My Grades' following ratification at the
Subject Assessment Board.
Referral and resubmission
To pass this module you must:
You are required to complete both of these tasks with a minimum of 40%.
In module retrieval is not available for the webfolio submission.
In module retrieval is available for the case discussions; you will be able to take up to 3 attempts for each case discussion. If you are referred in one case discussion, you are referred for task 2 and will therefore be penalised with a grade of 40%.
For further information about SHU assessment reg ulations, please visit the ‘learning essentials’ tab within shuspace and scroll down to the 'rules and regulations' link at the bottom of the page.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
ASSESSMENT
CRITERIA LEVEL 5
Reflect, assess and evidence your level of skill in patient care, team working and
Radiotherapy practice using appropriate tools including the interprofessional capability framework
Practice effectively within the Multi-
Disciplinary Team
(MDT) demonstrating a holistic approach to the care of service users
<40%
Provides insufficient evidence of personal, academic and professional development.
Insufficient examples of reflection and a lack of supportive evidence.
Insufficient evidence demonstrating skills around patient care, team working and radiotherapy practice. No reference or insufficient links to the interprofessional capability framework.
Insufficient use of published materials and inaccurate referencing.
Poor spelling and grammatical errors.
40 - 49%
Reflection is undertaken identifying some personal and professional skills required for patient care, team working and radiotherapy practice. The importance of one's skills is identified.
Some links are made to the interprofessional capability framework.
Appropriate presentation, acceptable use of English, few spelling mistakes and grammatical errors.
Sufficient use of published materials. Referencing evident with few mistakes.
Little or no evidence of effectively working within an MDT.
Little or no appreciation for the MDT role and its impact on providing holistic care for service users.
Evidence provided demonstrating participation in an MDT.
Theory discussed around the role of the MDT in providing holistic care to service users.
50 - 59%
Evidence provided of personal, academic and professional development more varied in nature and extent.
Evidence clearly demonstrating skills around patient care, team working and Radiotherapy
Practice.
Good attempt to justify choice of portfolio inclusions.
Reflection is utilised throughout the webfolio, with some supportive evidence.
Clear links made to the interprofessional capability framework and is utilised to assess professional development.
Clear structure and well organised with links between sections. Clarity of thought. Competent use of English and good academic style of writing.
Relevant published materials used and accurate referencing.
A good range of evidence demonstrating consistent engagement in an MDT approach.
Theoretical underpinning of MDT's is discussed.
How the MDT impacts on the holistic care for service
60 - 69%
A broad and innovative range of evidence demonstrating consistent engagement in an MDT approach.
Appraisal of the theory around MDT's and the role of the Therapy
70%+
Range and extent of evidence of personal, academic and professional development increasingly varied and substantiated.
The evidence demonstrates good skills around patient care, team working and Radiotherapy
Practice.
Demonstrates awareness and theoretical justification for reflection and utilises reflective models throughout the webfolio.
The interprofessional capability framework is discussed and utilised well to assess professional development.
Clear structure and organisation with cross referencing evident. Well presented. Clarity of thought and expression.
Good academic style of writing. Published materials used consistently throughout with accurate referencing.
Originality and initiative evidence utilised to illustrate personal, academic and professional development.
Evidence highlights a high level of skill around patient care, team working and
Radiotherapy practice.
Evaluates the theoretical justification for reflection and has examples of critical reflection throughout the webfolio.
The interprofessional framework is evaluated and utilised consistently to assess professional development.
Exceptionally well organised structure and organisation with cross referencing evident. Well presented. Clarity of thought and expression.
Good academic style of writing. Published materials used consistently throughout with accurate referencing.
A broad and innovative range of evidence demonstrating consistent engagement in an MDT approach.
Critical appraisal of the theory around MDT's and the role of the Therapy

Discuss and evaluate the management of a specified range of case examples from practice
Many inaccuracies and limited knowledge around case examples. Poor explanation. Irrelevant material included.
Demonstrate the required practice competence in the localisation, planning, dose calculations, delivery and verification of a specified range of
Radiotherapy techniques
Insufficient evidence to demonstrate competence in the localisation, planning, dose calculations, delivery and verification of a specified range of Radiotherapy techniques
Specific clinical learning outcomes are not met.
Basic knowledge demonstrated around case examples. Most information is relevant and accurate. Adequate explanation and summarising.
Basic evidence to demonstrate competence in the localisation, planning, dose calculations, delivery and verification of a specified range of Radiotherapy techniques
Specific clinical learning outcomes are achieved. users is evaluated.
Evidence of accurate and relevant material with good knowledge of case examples.
Aspects generally well explained and summarised.
Clear and consistent evidence demonstrating competence in the localisation, planning, dose calculations, delivery and verification of a specified range of Radiotherapy techniques
Specific clinical learning outcomes are achieved.
Radiographer is evaluated within the context of the
MDT.
How the MDT impacts on the holistic care for service users is evaluated.
Accurate and relevant material included that has been well explained and summarised, utilising a wide range of evidence.
A broad range of original evidence demonstrating competence in the localisation, planning, dose calculations, delivery and verification of a specified range of Radiotherapy techniques
Specific clinical learning outcomes are achieved.
Radiographer is critically appraised within the context of the MDT.
How the MDT impacts on the holistic care for service users is appraised.
Evidence of highly relevant knowledge of principles that have been very well explained and summarised around a wide range of case examples. A comprehensive range of relevant evidence.
Excellent range of evidence demonstrating competence in the localisation, planning, dose calculations, delivery and verification of a specified range of Radiotherapy techniques
Specific clinical learning outcomes are achieved.