THE SENATE
PATHWAY APPROVAL REPORT
(Core and/or Franchised Provision)
A confirmed report of the event held on 11 December 2008 to
consider the approval of the following pathways:
BSc (Hons) Midwifery for Registered Nurses
Post Graduate Diploma Midwifery for Registered Nurses
Faculty of Health and Social Care
Delivery of Pathways at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge
(Fulbourn) and Chelmsford
Quality Assurance Division
SECTION A – OUTCOME SUMMARY
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
This was a joint approval event with the Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC).
1.2
The purpose of the event was to consider the approval of the BSc (Hons) Midwifery for
Registered Nurses and Post Graduate Diploma Midwifery for Registered Nurses.
1.3
The pathways will be located in the Child and Family Health programme in the Child
and Family Health Department, Faculty of Health and Social Care.
2.
CONCLUSIONS
2.1
The Panel recommends to the Senate the approval of the following pathways:


BSc (Hons) Midwifery for Registered Nurses;
Post Graduate Diploma Midwifery for Registered Nurses
Approval, once confirmed, will be for 5 years in line with the NMC’s approval period, and
will be subject to Anglia Ruskin’s and the NMC’s continuing quality assurance procedures.
Delivery will be full-time for 79 weeks with a cohort size of 15 students per year.
2.2
The Panel recommends to the Senate the approval of 11 new modules for delivery. The
full titles of all new modules are provided in section D of the full 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
2.3.2
2.3.3
Details of Condition
Deadline
Response to
be considered
by
The Proposal Team should articulate and
demonstrate how clinical practice is graded and
evidenced against agreed assessment criteria
and accounted for in the academic awards.
(paragraph 4.2)
12 January
2009
Chair /
Executive
Officer (EO)
20 January
2009
12 January
2009
NMC
Reviewer
Chair / EO
External
Panel
Member:
Nicky Clark
20 January
2009
12 January
2009
NMC
Reviewer
Chair &
Technical
Officer
20 January
2009
NMC
Reviewer
The Proposal Team shall ensure progression
points are clearly identified and Essential Skills
Clusters are mapped to the appropriate
progression points. (paragraph 4.4)
The Proposal Teams 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. This will
include differentiating between levels 2 and 3,
particularly in terms of learning resources.
(paragraph 6.4 & 9.2)
Quality Assurance Division
2
Confirmed
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 26 February 2009:
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.5
Details of Recommendation
It is recommended that the Team clearly tracks the ethical and
legal elements throughout the modules as these should underpin
the whole pathway. (paragraph 4.6)
Deadline
26 January
2009
It is recommended that the Team clarify the documentation so
that it explicitly refers to the relevant NMC Circulars and also
details the Proposal Team’s achievements in responding to them.
(paragraph 4.2)
26 January
2009
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
It was noted that the current provision for midwifery education is via a three year direct
entry route only and, as such, makes the response for midwifery services slow. The
proposed shortened pathway into midwifery will provide a more rapid response towards
meeting future needs.
3.2
The Team explained that previously Cambridge had run a 79 week programme and Essex
and 86 week one and that the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) is now giving funding for a
79 week programme only, which will provide Registered Nurses with an accelerated
programme with a dual outcome approach to suit all. It was confirmed that the SHA has
commissioned a total of 30 places over the next two academic years starting with an intake
of 15 in Cambridge (Fulbourn) at the beginning of March 2009. The second intake will be
in Chelmsford, Essex.
4
CURRICULUM DESIGN, CONTENT AND DELIVERY
4.1
The Panel sought confirmation from the Clinical Representatives on the Proposal Team
that there was the capacity to take the proposed student numbers and that there would be
sufficient sign-off mentors available to cater for this development. This was confirmed to
be the case. It was noted that the Child & Family Health Department at Anglia Ruskin had
run the mentorship module 23 times in the previous year with a total of 833 students on the
module and that it was anticipated to run it at least 25 times during the coming year, thus
providing sufficient and continuous coverage. In addition to this, sign-off mentors would
also be required to participate in monthly update sessions. Whilst on the subject sign-off
mentors, the Clinical Representatives made known that the current handover time, where
students meet with the mentor to get sign-off, is an issue as it is so tight and confirmed that
this is an area they hoped to look at.
4.2
The Panel pointed out that a number of key NMC Circulars and standards did not appear to
have been addressed. The Proposal Team sought to reassure the Panel that all the
relevant ones had been incorporated into the documentation but acknowledged this
information should be referred to more explicitly. Accordingly, the Panel recommended this
be addressed in the documentation and that the Proposal Team also notes its
achievements in responding to them. (Recommendation 2.4.2)
4.3
A lengthy discussion took place regarding the grading of clinical practice as it was noted
that the NMC considers clinical practice should be graded, not just evidenced, and should
count as part of the academic award. Accordingly, the NMC Reviewer was interested to
know how this would take place and how it would be undertaken at the differing levels as
the documentation did not appear to cover this. The weighting of the practice assessment
element was also questioned as the Panel did not consider this to be clear. The Proposal
Team explained that Anglia Ruskin’s LME had sought advice on this at a recent NMC
workshop on grading for practice and was of the opinion that the proposed approach
satisfied the criteria, namely the use of a grading tool which mapped the competencies.
The Proposal Team confirmed that it had not been its intention to measure practice at the
higher level, instead, the students theoretical knowledge would be assessed, with those at
the higher level being able to demonstrate a more critical and in-depth analytical approach
to given situations than those studying at the lower level. Whilst the Proposal Team’s
rationale for its approach was duly noted, the Panel concluded that this was not sufficient
for the purposes of the NMC and therefore made it a condition of the event that further
work is undertaken in this area thus ensuring the relevant NMC Circular/Standard 14 is
appropriately addressed. (Condition 2.3.1)
Quality Assurance Division
4
Confirmed
4.4
The mapping of the Essential Skills Clusters against the portfolio was raised as the Panel
did not consider these to be explicit enough within the delivery even with the additional
information tabled by the Proposal Team. The Panel concluded that a more detailed
mapping exercise was required in order to clearly identify each Essential Skills Cluster
against the appropriate progression point. (Condition 2.3.2)
4.5
The Proposal Team explained its approach in respect of the design of the 79 week
pathway and its reason for the 60/40 practice/theory split which it considered to be
appropriate in order to allow students to complete all elements within the given timeframe.
4.6
The Panel felt that the ethical and legal elements associated with the subject had not come
through sufficiently in the documentation. Whilst it was accepted that this would be a
continuous theme running through the delivery, with legal, statutory and ethical issues
being considered on a regular basis, the view was this needed to be made more explicit.
Accordingly, the Panel recommended a review of each of the modules to ensure
appropriate reference. (Recommendation 2.4.1)
5
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
5.1
The learning and teaching methods were discussed and it was noted that these would
include WebCT, which amongst other things would be used to store PowerPoint
presentations, module guides, journal articles etc. In addition, WebCT would also be used
as a discussion arena which, due to the geographical spread of students, would prove very
useful. ‘Seamless inquiry based learning’ had been referred to in the documentation. This,
it was explained, would allow the student to get involved in their education and learning
and, from the Proposal Team’s perspective, help trigger theory sessions and draw out
issues which could be used in tutorials and for students to present to others. Also included
would be the OSCE, presentations, various reports and the major project all of which would
allow the student to develop/demonstrate a variety of skills.
5.2
The Panel sought clarification regarding case loading. The Proposal Team confirmed that
students would pick up three cases and see through as many opportunities as they could
while in that placement.
5.3
It was noted that in respect of the student’s ongoing achievement record, the mentor would
be provided with the previous practice review and that comments from the mentor would be
worked into the PDP and could also be used in the student’s next learning contract. In
terms of student consenting to this the Proposal Team confirmed that this is achieved by
way of the student flagging up issues and identifying areas for learning.
6
STAFFING, LEARNING RESOURCES AND STUDENT SUPPORT
6.1
The Panel was interested to learn that a new member of staff had been recruited in
Cambridge for January and that interviewing was underway for an Essex post. Also that
the Practice Educator role was due to be rolled out in Cambridge (for Addenbrookes).
6.2
The Panel met with four students (two from both Cambridge and Essex) who were on
existing Anglia Ruskin midwifery pathways. The students informed the Panel of their
experiences to date in relation to their respective pathways, which the Panel found most
useful. These included student support, mentorship, practice/placement, use of available
resources and student feedback. The students described their pathways as tough but
rewarding and considered the necessary support to be in place and felt they had a voice.
On the subject of sign-off mentors the students considered there to be enough but did
Quality Assurance Division
5
Confirmed
comment that it is not always easy to take time out with the mentor given the busy nature of
a maternity ward. With regard to the Learning Contract, it was noted that the students saw
it to be down to them to drive this along in terms of what they would like to achieve.
6.3
The Panel also met with a senior midwife/sign-off mentor from St John’s Hospital,
Chelmsford who explained that in preparation for this development there had been a series
of mentor update sessions, together with midwife for practice development. On the subject
of placement numbers, it was confirmed that as long as these did not go any higher than
projected there would be sufficient places available. It was noted that the role of the
Practice Educator and that of the midwifery link lecturer were considered to be a very
important and useful one to the mentor. The only criticism raised was in respect of the half
an hour handover time in the clinical setting to discuss outcomes with the student before
sign-off. This was considered to be insufficient and often resulted in mentors having to
meet with the students in their own time to ensure this process is handled appropriately.
6.4
The Panel did not consider there to be sufficient differentiation between levels 3 and 4’
particularly in respect of the learning resources referred to in the documentation. The
Proposal Team confirmed this would be achieved via the Module Guides which would carry
more extensive reading lists for those at the higher level. The Panel considered this should
be more explicit in the MDFs and made it a condition of the event. (Condition 2.3.3)
7
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
7.1
The Panel was satisfied with the information provided within the proposal documentation in
respect of quality assurance and enhancements.
8
NATIONAL, PROFESSIONAL AND STATUTORY BODY REQUIREMENTS
8.1
This was a joint approval event with the NMC and their representative attended as a
member of the Panel.
8.2
The NMC Reviewer supported the approval of the pathway subject to the Proposal Team
providing additional documentation/clarification in respect of the conditions set. (Condition
2.3.1, 2.3.2 & 2.3.3)
9
DOCUMENTATION
9.1
The Panel complimented the Proposal Team on the comprehensive set of documents
provided.
9.2
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. These would need to be submitted
electronically to the Technical Officer. (Condition 2.3.3)
10
CONFIRMATION OF STANDARDS OF AWARDS
10.1
The Panel confirmed that the proposed BSc (Hons)/PG Dip Midwifery for Registered
Nurses 79 week 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.
Quality Assurance Division
6
Confirmed
DRAFT
UNCONFIRMED
CONFIRMED
FILE REF
OFFICE FILE REF
Quality Assurance Division
7
4 February 2009
11 February 2009
Confirmed
SECTION C – DETAILS OF PANEL MEMBERSHIP AND PROPOSAL TEAM
Internal Panel Members:
Jonathan Knowles (Chair)
Principal Lecturer
Ashcroft International Business School
Penny English
Principal Lecturer
Faculty of Arts, Law & Social Sciences
External Panel Members:
Nursing & Midwifery Council
Reviewers:
Nicky Clark
Midwifery Lecturer
University of Hull
Jan Stosiek
Academic Midwife Teacher
Bournemouth University
Executive Officer:
Sara Elliott
Faculty Quality Assurance Officer
Quality Assurance Division, Academic Office
Technical Officer:
Helen Sismey
Academic Regulations Assistant,
Academic Office
Members of Proposal Team:
Anne Trotter
Head of Department: Child & Family Health
Faculty of Health & Social Care
Louise Jenkins
Midwifery Lecturer
Faculty of Health & Social Care
Wendy Tilbury
Lecturer Midwifery
Faculty of Health & Social Care
Sue Skinner
Neonatal Lecturer
Faculty of Health & Social Care
Frances Galloway
Midwifery Practice Educator / Lecturer
Faculty of Health & Social Care
Zita Killick
Midwifery Lecturer
Faculty of Health & Social Care
Marina Donaghy
Midwifery Lecturer
Faculty of Health & Social Car
Quality Assurance Division
8
Confirmed
Helen Bottom
Midwifery Lecturer
Faculty of Health & Social Care
Valerie Hemmings
Midwifery Lecturer
Faculty of Health & Social Care
Alison Cuthbertson
Head of Midwifery
Mid Essex
Jacqui Featherstone
Deputy Head of Midwifery
Princess Alexandra Hospital
Harlow
Quality Assurance Division
9
Confirmed
SECTION D – OUTCOME DATA
Programme
Department
Faculty
Collaborative Partner
Amended Award Approved
Child & Family Health
Child & Family Health
Faculty of Health and Social Care
n/a
Title of Named Pathway
BSc (Hons)
Midwifery for Registered Nurses
Full-time
PG Dip
Midwifery for Registered Nurses
Full-time
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)
Attendance mode
and duration
Nursing & Midwifery Council
Wendy Tilbury
March 2009
15
NEW MODULES APPROVED
DM230077S
DM330082S
Normal Childbirth
Normal Childbirth
DM230078S
DM330083S
Normal Neonate and Infant Nutrition
Normal Neonate and Infant Nutrition
DM330084S
DM430031S
The Midwife’s Role in Public Health
The Midwife’s Role in Public Health
DM330085S
DM430032S
Complexities in Childbirth
Complexities in Childbirth
DM330086S
DM430033S
Preparation for Professional Ethical Practice
Preparation for Professional Ethical Practice
DM4300034S Midwifery Critical Enquiry
Quality Assurance Division
10
Confirmed