THE SENATE
PATHWAY APPROVAL REPORT
(Core Provision)
A confirmed report of the event held on 17 November 2008 to
consider the approval of the following pathways:
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Advanced Midwifery Practice
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Health Promotion
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Health & Social Care Management*
(* Secretary’s note: the title of this pathway has been revised following the approval event to:
Management and Leadership in Health & Social Care)
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Management of Anti-Social Behaviour &
Community Safety
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Physiotherapy
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Public Health
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Health & Social Studies [Framework
Award]
Faculty of Health and Social Care
Delivery of Pathways at Anglia Ruskin University:
Cambridge
Chelmsford
Quality Assurance Division
SECTION A – OUTCOME SUMMARY
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The purpose of the event was to consider the approval of the following pathways, which will
be located in the Programmes and Departments as indicated:







MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Advanced Midwifery Practice
Department of Child & Family Health, Programme of Child & Family Health
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Health Promotion
Department of Allied Health, Programme of Interprofessional Learning
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Health & Social Care Management
Department of Allied Health, Programme of Interprofessional Learning
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Management of Anti-Social Behaviour & Community Safety
Department of Social Work & Social Policy, Programme of Social Policy & Regulation
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Physiotherapy
Department of Allied Health, Programme of Interprofessional Learning
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Public Health
Department of Allied Health, Programme of Interprofessional Learning
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Health & Social Studies [Framework Award]
Department of Allied Health, Programme of Interprofessional Learning
The pathways will be located in theFaculty of Health and Social Care.
1.2
This event was the second in a suite of events to approve a framework of Post Graduate
pathways within the Faculty of Health & Social Care. The first event took place on 1st May
2008 with the approval of the MSc Advanced Practice pathway.
1.3
The MSc/PGDip/PGCert Health & Social Studies award is a Framework award as defined
within Anglia Ruskin Academic Regulations (2nd Edition, July 2008, paragraph: 2.11) and is
therefore not directly available to students. This pathway will not be advertised in the
Anglia Ruskin or the Faculty’s prospectuses, UCAS documentation or any other external
information source.
2.
CONCLUSIONS
2.1
The Panel recommends to the Senate the approval of the following pathways:



MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Advanced Midwifery Practice
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Health Promotion
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Health & Social Care Management*
(* Secretary’s note: the title of this pathway has been revised following the approval event to:
Management and Leadership in Health & Social Care – ASQRC 12 Jan 2009)




MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Management of Anti-Social Behaviour & Community Safety
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Physiotherapy
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Public Health
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Health & Social Studies [Framework Award]
All pathways are approved for full-time and part-time modes of attendance.
Approval, once confirmed, will be for an indefinite period, subject to Anglia Ruskin’s
continuing quality assurance procedures.
2.2
The Panel recommends to the Senate the approval of eight new modules for delivery. The
full titles of all new modules are provided in section D of this report
Quality Assurance Division
2
Confirmed
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
Details of Condition
Deadline
Response to
be considered
by
The Teams shall review the pathway learning
outcomes for the awards of Post Graduate Certificate,
Post Graduate Diploma and Masters for all pathways
to ensure they reflect the qualification descriptors for
Level 4.
9
December
2008
Chair /
Executive
Officer
To support this clarification it shall be made explicit
within section 16 of the pathway specification forms
that each higher award incorporates the pathway
learning outcomes of the previous award(s).
(Paragraph 4.3)
2.3.2
The Teams shall submit revised Student Handbooks,
appropriately contextualised to each pathway, which
clearly set out:
 the student attendance expectation
 the quality monitoring and evaluation
procedures, involving student representation,
which take place within each pathway /
Programme
 a description of the assessment strategy within
the pathway with particular reference to any
innovative methods that may be unfamiliar, for
example, Patchwork Text
 the Personal Tutor arrangements within each
pathway
(Paragraphs 6.9, 7.2, 9.1, 9.2,)
9
December
2008
Chair /
Executive
Officer
2.3.3
The Teams shall review the module: Epidemiology, in
order to strengthen the content to ensure it more
closely matches the outline content of the Research
Studies module and appropriately prepares students
for the Major Project. Amendments may require a
change in the title or submission of an entirely new
module for approval.
(Paragraph 4.4)
9
December
2008
Chair /
Executive
Officer
External
Panel
Member:
Karen
Roome
2.3.4
The Teams shall review and resubmit all pathway
specification forms and module definition forms and to
ensure amendments are made in line with the
Technical Report and discussions held at the Approval
Event.
9
December
2008
Chair /
Executive
Officer /
Technical
Officer
Specific amendments shall be made by the Midwifery
and Physiotherapy Teams who shall revise the entry
requirements, as stated within section 17 of the
pathway specification forms, for the following awards:
 MSc/PGDip/PG Cert Advanced Midwifery
Practice
Quality Assurance Division
3
Confirmed
 MSc/PGDip/PG Cert Physiotherapy
to ensure they consistently express the admission
requirements for both UK and international students.
The relevant qualification, that has allowed students to
register with their professional body, should be
specified.
(Paragraphs 5.3, 5.4, 6.3)
2.4 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 and Social Care will consider the
responses at its meeting of 26th February 2009:
Details of Recommendation
Deadline
2.4.1
The Midwifery Team is recommended to review the use of the
word “interventions” as expressed within learning outcome 6 of
the module: Promoting Normal Childbirth.
(paragraph 4.8)
5th February
2009
2.4.2
The Teams are recommended to clarify the minimum period of
registration for a full-time student on all documentation; and that
this should be at least one full calendar year from the start of the
first module.
(paragraph 6.6)
5th February
2009
2.4.3
The Teams are recommended to amend the entry requirements
for all pathways to ensure students, whose first language is not
English, are required to have achieved a minimum IELTS score
of 7.0.
(paragraph 9.3)
5th February
2009
2.4.4
The Public Health Team is recommended to review the learning
outcomes of the module: Essential Issues in Public Health Policy
and to ensure that the essential requirement of collaborative and
partnership working between all agencies, as highlighted within
the module description, is made more explicit in the outcomes.
(paragraph 4.5)
5th February
2009
2.5 Issues Referred to the Senate (or appropriate standing committee)
The Panel identified the following institution-wide issue as requiring the attention of the
Senate or the appropriate standing committee of the Senate:
2.5.1
The Academic Regulations provide clear information at paragraph 2.16 of the total
number of credits an undergraduate student normally takes during one academic
year or per semester; however, there is no corresponding guidelines for post
graduate students in relation to the amount of credit taken per semester, apart from
the minimum period of registration indicated under paragraph 3.23. The Panel
recommended that consideration be given to including reference to post graduate
students and the maximum credit normally taken per semester. (paragraph 9.4)
Quality Assurance Division
4
Confirmed
2.5.2
The Senate’s attention is drawn to the following admission process as required by
Academic Regulation (July 2008, 2nd Edition) 4.21:
The entry requirements to all pathways allows for students to enter under the
process described within the 3rd bullet point, namely: extensive relevant practical
experience, either on its own or taken in combination with other qualifications,
deemed by the Senate (or a committee acting on its behalf) as evidence that an
applicant possesses the appropriate knowledge and skills equivalent to an Honours
Degree. The Teams confirmed that this entry process may be invoked in relation to
international students or UK students who may have achieved professional
registration at Diploma level. (paragraph 6.1)
Quality Assurance Division
5
Confirmed
SECTION B – DETAIL OF DISCUSSION AND PANEL CONCLUSIONS
3
RATIONALE
3.1
In May 2008 the MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Advanced Practice pathway was approved. This
development initiated a Master’s framework on which subsequent post graduate pathways
within the Faculty of Health & Social Care will be based. The underpinning strategy
represents the Faculty’s desire to improve and streamline provision through a more
efficient use of resources and to open up new markets within the UK and abroad.
3.2
The pathway curricula presented within this proposal acknowledge local, British, European
and international contexts that are likely to appeal to both UK and foreign students. The
Team confirmed that while there is a tendency to use UK exemplars across disciplines
pathways will use comparisons with non-UK policy and practice, identify European and
internal directives and policies such as international human rights and international social
determinants of health. The degree to which international contexts are present will relate to
the pathway discipline and student cohort.
3.3
Two of the pathways presented at this event were not new but have been modified to
accommodate the new framework without compromising the content and speciality of each
award. These are:
 MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Public Health
 MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Management of Anti-Social Behaviour & Community Safety
The modifications to this pathway have included a change in title to reflect more clearly
the interests of all stakeholders.
4
CURRICULUM DESIGN, CONTENT AND DELIVERY
4.1
The Proposal Teams have adopted a common framework that enables students to
undertake both generic and specialist study. The first 60 credits (PG Certificate) are
unique to each specialism; 90 compulsory credits are shared through the Research
element and the Major Project; the remaining 30 designate credits provide students with a
limited choice of one from four optional modules. This common framework has allowed the
Teams to timetable more efficiently and to also provide a strong focus on collaborative and
inter-professional learning.
4.2
The pathways are all offered in the alternative delivery modes of part-time and full-time.
The framework allows students to progress through their awards at a pace that suits the
individual and his or her current work loads.
4.3
The Panel discussed with the Teams the intended learning outcomes as described within
the pathway specification forms (PSFs) with a view to identifying their link with Anglia
Ruskin’s level descriptors and demonstrating progression within each pathway. The Panel
was confident, through the discussions held, that the Teams were aware of the
expectations of Level 4, however Panel members were not convinced that mastery was
evident throughout the documentation and requested the Teams to review their pathway
learning outcomes to ensure they were more in line with the descriptors. The Panel also
considered that the PSFs would be clearer in section 16 if each of the intermediate and
final awards included a statement confirming that the pathway learning outcomes for that
award included the pathway learning outcomes of the lower award. This would
demonstrate more clearly progression and coherence. (Condition 2.3.1)
4.4
The Panel noted that the Public Health pathway did not include the same core modules in
its framework and the Research Studies module had been replaced by a separate one
entitled: Epidemiology. The Team advised that this module had been used as there is
insufficient space in the curriculum to meet all the requirements of the Public Health
agenda and without it essential skills would be omitted.
Its inclusion had also been
Quality Assurance Division
6
Confirmed
supported by the commissioners. Although the Team advised that the module has an
element of research as well as focussing on the skills needed to prepare for a major project
the Panel was concerned that this module would not prepare students sufficiently well for
the Major Project as evidenced through the module’s learning outcomes. The Panel also
felt that the title of the module could be made more apparent so that students were quite
clear of the purpose of this module and of the research element included. The Panel
required the Public Health Team, and the Management of Anti-Social Behaviour in
Community Safety Team, who offered it as an option to the Research Studies module, to
review the module’s focus and outcomes to ensure it fully met the research element of the
pathway. (Condition 2.3.3)
4.5
Within the core public health modules, partnership working and public involvement is
implicit but the Panel considered that it should be made more explicit within the learning
outcomes of the module: Essential Issues in Public Health Policy. (Recommendation
2.4.4)
4.6
In addition to the six discipline specific awards presented at this event, the Faculty was also
seeking approval for a separate Framework award (see paragraph 1.3) that will be made
available to students who have been unable to satisfy the credit requirements of the
pathway on which they are registered. The Panel sought assurance from the Team that
students who complete the Epidemiology module before transferring to the Framework
award would not be at a disadvantage. The Panel confirmed that this would not affect the
students’ progression to a final Master’s award and would also provide additional
preparation for future quantitative research for their Major Project.
4.7
The Panel discussed with the Physiotherapy Team the focus of the pathway in relation to
extending the scope of practice. The Team acknowledged that the pathway was not aimed
at extending students’ learning in specific clinical specialisms but would be taking a more
holistic approach with a view to improving their patients’ functional ability and enabling
them to return to work. The Team has taken into account the Chartered Society of
Physiotherapy’s three areas of focus: working in partnership; highlighting the importance of
exercise; and health promotion.
4.8
Within the Advanced Midwifery Practice pathway, learning outcome six, of the module:
Promoting Normal Childbirth, included reference to “interventionist” strategies.
A
discussion took place on the appropriateness of this word within a module that was
promoting the norm. Although the Panel acknowledged the need for a midwife to be aware
of when it is necessary to intervene in the normal process of childbirth it was felt that this
phrase detracted from the focus of the module and was not appropriate. The Panel asked
the Team to reconsider the learning outcome in light of the discussions held.
(Recommendation 2.4.1)
4.9
Two very similar pathways appeared to have been presented: Public Health and Health
Promotion, and the Panel asked if it was appropriate to offer both as separate awards. The
Teams explained that epidemiology was the driver for the Public Health pathway, whilst
Health Promotion was about empowerment within communities. It was acknowledged that
there was some overlap within the skills base and therefore there will be shared modules
but the pathways would have a different focus from the start. The Health Promotion Team
was aware of the current debate within the discipline and the change in focus from health
promotion to health improvement and would continue to monitor it with a view to developing
the pathway as necessary in line with current practice.
5
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
Quality Assurance Division
7
Confirmed
5.1
Assessment is an integral part of the learning experience within the pathways. A variety of
assessment strategies are utilised to ensure that students are able to integrate theoretical
and practical knowledge with relevant contextual understanding.
5.2
There did not appear to be any information in the documentation about formative
assessment, however the Panel was advised that a lot of formative work took place that
had not been articulated. One feature of formative work was the involvement of students in
presentations within the classrooms in order to develop their skills for the workplace. The
Teams were aware that although much was happening in this area it could be further
developed and would be considered at future curriculum development meetings.
5.3
The Panel was interested to hear more about the patchwork text method of assessment
that is used widely within the Faculty of Health & Social Care but is not generally known
about outside the faculty. It is an assessment process developed within Anglia Ruskin that
supports the integration of assessment and teaching and learning and is often used within
inter-professional work. One of the modules within the Management of Anti-Social
Behaviour and Community Safety pathway offered it as an option within the assessment.
The Team was advised that it is not possible within the Academic Regulations to provide a
choice of assessment, although it was appreciated by the Panel that the option was to
allow students to choose a style of assessment that suits them best and widens the variety
of assessment within the pathway. The Team was required to resubmit the module
definition form with only one method of assessment. (Condition 2.3.4 / Technical Report)
5.4
The Panel noted that there was not always consistency in how the assessment methods
are presented on the module definition forms across the pathways. This mainly related to
modules with a two part assessment, one of which is a presentation and the other a written
piece of work. The weighting between the two elements indicated that a higher percentage
was awarded for a 30 minute presentation in one module than the other. The Teams were
required to discuss this and ensure there was parity for all students in relation to the
assessment tasks. (Condition 2.3.4 / Technical report)
6
STAFFING, LEARNING RESOURCES AND STUDENT SUPPORT
6.1
The Panel asked the Proposal Teams how they would manage and support prospective
students who presented with a shortfall in their skills. The Teams advised that through
effective marketing and pre-course information the expectation will be that students will
already have the correct skills set at the start of the course. Team members have a great
deal of experience in screening students at initial interview to ensure that this is clarified
from the start.
However, it is possible for students to access the pathways through the
non-standard entry route that allows students, who do not have a UK honours degree or
equivalent but do have extensive relevant practical experience, to present a profile that
demonstrates the student’s ability to meet the needs of mastery though additional
continuing professional development. (See paragraph: 2.5.2) The level of qualification for
professional registration for a number of these prospective students will have been at Dip
HE, Level 2; however, many of them will be able to evidence additional professional
development at Level 3 through completion of short courses or stand alone modules.
6.2
The Panel was advised that students are continually monitored from the outset and staff
were confident that they would be able to identify students who were struggling or were
lacking in their academic study skills, during induction and Semester 1. Students who
require additional support are directed to the various services offered by the University
including advice on study skills, and also provided with additional tutorial support.
6.3
Two of the awards presented included a specific profession within the title, namely:
Advanced Midwifery Practice and Physiotherapy and the Teams confirmed that students
will already be registered and practising professionals within their country of origin prior to
Quality Assurance Division
8
Confirmed
commencing on the Anglia Ruskin awards.
These pathways will not enable an
international student, on successful completion, to practise in the UK but to return to their
country with a recognised qualification that will enhance their skills. It was noted that the
entry requirements as stated in section 17 of the pathway specification forms (PSF) were
open to misinterpretation for both pathways and the Panel required amendments to be
made that identified the specific qualifications that a student will have achieved prior to
entry. (Condition 2.3.4)
6.4
A shared induction for all pathways within the framework will take place where students are
encouraged to become involved with established networks and share information through
email and other media. A successful induction programme has already been introduced for
Public Health international students on the Chelmsford campus that is in addition to the
University-wide induction programme. The emphasis is on providing training on the
computer software that students will be encouraged to access; an introduction to the
Library; and identification of any language or study skills for which students may need to
seek additional support. It has not been compulsory for students to attend these sessions
in the past but from January 2009 it will become compulsory for all pathways. Induction will
initially be over a block of three days then spread out through the first semester providing
additional support when necessary and to enhance where skills are deficient. Delivery will
be managed to fit in with the timetables of each cohort.
6.5
There was considerable discussion held on the students work load and their ability to
progress successfully whilst also in full-time employment. Although these students will
follow a part-time two year delivery pattern this will still result in a requirement to achieve
60 credits within one semester. This was emphasised as particularly problematic for
midwifery students who may not be able to take time out for their studies on a regular basis
if the work load situation within their Trust and labour wards makes this impossible. The
Teams advised the Panel that the one year full-time and the 2 year part-time delivery
periods were developed based on their current experience of delivering the Advanced
Practice pathway. Students were generally mature and motivated and well informed in
advance of the delivery mode. Most students wish to complete the pathway as soon as
possible, however, the Team was supportive of those who need more time and
arrangements are made in conjunction with the Student Advisor on an individual basis.
6.6
The pathway specification forms indicated on the structure diagram in section 26, that
students were required to complete their pathway at the end of semester 2 in June.
However, the Academic Regulations stipulate a minimum period of registration should be
one year for a full-time postgraduate pathway of 180 credits and advised the Teams to
make it quite clear that students would have until the end of the academic year in August to
complete their major project. Despite this extension of two months the Panel still had
concerns regarding the feasibility of completing a major project and another 30 credit
module, all at master’s level, within the timeframe and agreed to draw this issue to the
attention of Senate, for further debate. (see paragraph 2.5.1) (Recommendation 2.4.2)
6.7
The Panel asked the Teams about the anticipated student numbers in relation to the quality
of the student experience. The documentation stated that they were seeking approval for
20 students per cohort, with two intakes per year, i.e. a maximum per annum across all
pathways of 40 students. The Teams were aware that they were unlikely to achieve these
numbers evenly across all pathways but they expected the joint core modules to attract at
least 20 students per cohort. A concern was raised by the Panel in respect of the pathway
compulsory modules that initially may only attract a small number and if they would
continue to run the modules if students left during the year. The Teams confirmed that
Anglia Ruskin would continue to honour the delivery of a module once it had commenced.
6.8
The information provided in the documentation relating to the learning resources available
to students was limited and the Panel requested more information on the library, the digital
library, inter-library loans and the library facilities available to students within hospitals. The
Quality Assurance Division
9
Confirmed
Panel was satisfied with the information provided by the Teams and that there were
sufficient resources available. The Panel was also pleased to be advised by the pathway
team for the Management of Anti-Social Behaviour and Community Safety pathway that
they had received consistently good feedback from their students in relation to the library
resources and facilities.
6.9
It was not clear from the documentation how the personal tutor role would be managed
within each pathway. Due to the differing nature and cohort size slightly different
arrangements would be made within each pathway. The Panel required the Teams to
make it quite clear within each pathway student handbook the specific arrangements for
their students. (Condition 2.3.2)
7
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
7.1
The pathways are located within three different departments (see paragraph 1.1).
However, five of the seven pathways will be managed by the Department of Allied Health
and the Programme of Interprofessional Learning. It was acknowledged by all Teams that
there needed to be a co-ordinating overview taken to manage all the pathways, particularly
in the early days of delivery, and this would be from within the Programme of
Interprofessional Learning through the Programme Leader. Meetings would take place at
least once per semester and the Panel was provided with a timetable of the scheduled
meetings already arranged for 2008/09.
7.2
It was not clear from the documentation provided how students would engage with the
committee structures within the University in order to ensure their views and concerns were
appropriately considered. The Panel was advised that each pathway will have an
appointed representative who will be invited to Programme Subcommittees. Due to the
unique nature of these pathways the managing Programme is proposing a sub-group of the
Programme subcommittee be convened. It is often very difficult to ensure students on
professional development pathways fully engage with quality enhancement processes and
by organising a separate meeting that can be timetabled to suit these students greater
representation might be achieved. The Panel commended the teams for being proactive
and advised the Teams to ensure this aspect of student life at Anglia Ruskin is clearly
presented within the student handbooks. (Condition 2.3.2)
8
NATIONAL, PROFESSIONAL AND STATUTORY BODY REQUIREMENTS
8.1
None of the pathways presented at this event will be seeking professional body
accreditation. Accreditation for Midwifery and Physiotherapy courses is currently only at
the level of registration and not available for post graduate professional development.
However, the Teams confirmed they would consider seeking approval at a future date
when professional bodies have determined the standards for continuing professional
development pathways. The Panel was advised that strong links were maintained with
employers and clinical staff were members of the curriculum teams for both these
pathways. This was evidenced through a list provided of the attendance at the various
curriculum development groups that had taken place over the previous months.
9
DOCUMENTATION
9.1
Within the documentation the attendance requirement of the students was not clear to the
Panel and there was some discussion on how the policy should be applied. The Teams
confirmed that as a number of students will be funded by the SHA through contracted
places attendance registers are always taken and Trust managers are provided with copies
of these registers. The Teams will also exercise a strong pastoral role and make contact
Quality Assurance Division
10
Confirmed
with each student who has missed lectures to find out if the student requires more time or
requires to intermit. In addition, the Home Office needs to be informed if international
students do not appear to be attending lectures. The expectation is that students should
attend all taught sessions and the Panel advised the Team to ensure this is made clear to
the students within the Student Handbook. (Condition 2.3.2)
9.2
The Panel provided a number of further suggestions to the Teams on the content of the
Student Handbooks to ensure they are informative and student friendly and met the needs
of each particular pathway. These included:
 A fuller description of the assessment strategy with particular reference to the
patchwork text, where relevant (see paragraph 5.3)
 Quality and enhancement features (see paragraph 7.2)
 Personal tutor arrangements (see paragraph 6.8)
(Condition 2.3.2)
9.3
All pathways had noted in section 17 of the pathway specification forms that the minimum
entry requirement for a student whose first language is not English will be an IELTS score
of 6.5. The Panel discussed this with the Team as concern was expressed that students
may not have the necessary language skills to engage in research at master’s level if they
have only achieved the minimum IELTS score. As a result of the discussions the Panel
recommended that the Team consider increasing the score to 7.0.
(Recommendation 2.4.3)
10
MISCELLANEOUS
10.1
The Chair thanked the Teams for the documentation that had demonstrated an innovative
proposal with the efficient organisation of curricula linked to professional practice. The
Teams had clearly engaged with the approval process providing well prepared responses
to the initial feedback from Panel members and throughout the meeting.
11
CONFIRMATION OF STANDARDS OF AWARDS
11.1
The Panel confirmed that the proposed pathways:



MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Advanced Midwifery Practice
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Health Promotion
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Health & Social Care Management*
(* Secretary’s note: the title of this pathway has been revised following the approval event to:
Management and Leadership in Health & Social Care – ASQRC 12 Jan 2009)




MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Management of Anti-Social Behaviour & Community Safety
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Physiotherapy
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Public Health
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert Health & Social Studies [Framework Award]
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
9th February 2009
9th February 2009
13th February 2009
11
Confirmed
SECTION C – DETAILS OF PANEL MEMBERSHIP AND PROPOSAL TEAM
Internal Panel Members:
Dr Iain Brodie (Chair)
Associate Dean (Quality)
Faculty of Science & Technology
Internal Panel Member:
Robin Jennings
Director of Studies
Faculty of Science & Technology
External Panel Members:
Nicky Clark
Lead Midwife Educator
University of Hull
Suzanne Fletcher
Physiotherapy Lecturer
University of East Anglia
Karen Roome
Programme Leader, MSc Public Health/MSc Community
Health/Lecturer in Community Nursing
Glasgow Caledonian University
Executive Officer:
Libby Martin
Faculty Quality Assurance Officer
Quality Assurance Division, Academic Office
Technical Officer:
Helen Sismey
Academic Regulations Assistant
Academic Office
Members of Proposal Team:
Sharon McDonald, Proposal Team Leader,
Director of CPD and Postgraduate Portfolio,
Sarah Burch, Acting Head of Department:
Social Work and Social Policy
Belinda Watts, Programme Leader, Interprofessional Learning
Shirley Jones, Pathway Leader, MSc Advanced Practice, MSc
Physiotherapy
Barbara Meeds,
Physiotherapy
Clinical
Specialist
Physiotherapist,
MSc
Trudy Stevens, Pathway Leader, MSc Advanced Midwifery
Practice
Jon Svensson, Pathway Leader, MSc Health & Social Care
Management
Stewart Piper, Pathway Leader, MSc Health Promotion
Elaine Statham, Pathway Leader, Management of Anti-Social
Behaviour and Community Safety
Sam Assan, Pathway Leader, MSc Public Health
Quality Assurance Division
12
Confirmed
Andy Stevens, Principle Lecturer, Public Health
Tony Bottiglieri, Senior Lecturer, Health & Social Care
Management
Rollanda Law, Module Leader – Research Studies and Major
Project
Quality Assurance Division
13
Confirmed
SECTION D – OUTCOME DATA
Programmes
Interprofessional Learning
Child & Family Health
Social Policy and Regulation
Allied Health
Child & Family Health
Social Work & Social Policy
Departments
Faculty
Collaborative Partner
New/amended Awards
Approved (nb intended awards
Faculty of Health and Social Care
N/A
Titles of Named Pathways
Attendance mode
and duration
only, not intermediate awards)
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert
MSc / PG Dip / PG Cert
Advanced Midwifery Practice
Health Promotion
Management & Leadership in Health & Social Care
Management of Anti-Social Behaviour & Community
Safety
Physiotherapy
Public Health
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)
FT & PT
FT & PT
FT & PT
FT & PT
FT & PT
FT & PT
Sharon McDonald
January 2009
January / September
January 2010
NEW MODULES APPROVED
DM430029S
Promoting Normal Childbirth
DM430030S
Facilitating Complex Childbirth
DL430072S
Organisational Transformation in Health & Social Care
DL430073S
Behaviour Change and Strategic Practice
DL430074S
Empowerment and Sustainable Communities
DL430076S
Application of Optimising Fitness to Function
DL430077S
Theory of Optimising Fitness to Function
DL430078S
Strategic Management and Commissioning
Quality Assurance Division
14
Confirmed