THE SENATE
PATHWAY APPROVAL REPORT
(Core and/or Franchised Provision)
A confirmed report of the event held on 16 April 2009 to consider the
approval and franchise of the following pathways:
Bachelor of Osteopathy (Honours) (BOst (Hons))
Master of Osteopathy (MOst)
Faculty of Health & Social Care
Delivery of Pathways at London School of Osteopathy
Quality Assurance Division
SECTION A – OUTCOME SUMMARY
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The purpose of the event was to consider the approval and franchise of the Bachelor of
Osteopathy (Hons) (BOst) and Master of Osteopathy (MOst) for delivery at the London
School of Osteopathy.
1.2
The pathways will be located in the Allied Health programme, Allied Health Department in
the Faculty of Health & Social Care.
1.
CONCLUSIONS
2.1
The Panel recommends to the Senate the approval and franchise of the following
pathways:


Bachelor of Osteopathy (Hons) (BOst (Hons))
Master of Osteopathy (MOst).
Approval, once confirmed, will be for an indefinite period, subject to Anglia Ruskin’s
continuing quality assurance procedures.
Delivery will be part-time study in years 1-3, then full-time in years 4-5 with a cohort
maximum size of 35 (23 FTE) in years 1-3 and 35 in years 4-5. There will be one intake
per annum, in October or late September. The first intake will be October 2009.
2.2
The Panel recommends to the Senate the approval of 21 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:
Details of Condition
Deadline
Response to be
considered by
2.3.1
The Proposal Team shall put into action its
existing plan to re-stock the library.
(paragraph 5.2)
4 June 2009
Chair,
Executive
Officer
2.3.2
The School shall ensure that it has in place a
clear procedure in relation to the moderation
process so that it meets the requirements
detailed in section 4.4 & 7.4 of the 2008/09
Procedural Document for the Senate Code of
Practice on The Assessment of Students.
(paragraph 9.1)
4 June 2009
Chair,
Executive
Officer
2.3.3
The Proposal Team shall re-submit a revised
Student Handbook ensuring it meets Anglia
Ruskin’s requirements and presentation and that
it incorporates the comments raised by the
Panel.
(paragraph 11.3)
4 June 2009
Chair,
Executive
Officer
Quality Assurance Division
2
Confirmed
2.4
2.3.4
The School shall ensure that the processes and
procedures it has in place relating to the
operation of the two pathways match those of
Anglia Ruskin, particularly in relation to issues,
such as, ethics approval and fitness to practice.
(paragraph 8.4)
4 June 2009
Chair,
Executive
Officer
2.3.5
The School shall provide the Panel with formal
confirmation from the General Osteopathic
Council (GOsC) on whether a RQ will be
required in respect of the new integrated Masters
degree (MOst).
(paragraph 10.1)
4 June 2009
Chair,
Executive
Officer
2.3.6
The Proposal Team shall submit an electronic
copy of the Pathway Specification Forms (PSFs)
and Module Definition Forms (MDFs) in
accordance with the Technical Report and in line
with discussions that took place during the
approval event.
(paragraph 11.1)
4 June 2009
Chair,
Technical
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 13 October 2009:
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.5
Details of Recommendation
It is recommended that the Proposal Team keeps under review
the number of taught hours and its learning & teaching strategy in
respect of both pathways to ensure these are realistically set.
(paragraph 7.4)
Deadline
4 June 2009
It is recommended that together, Anglia Ruskin and the School
develop and produce a strategic plan in respect of staff
development for LSO colleagues, which should include the
requirement for LSO colleagues to obtain an appropriate teaching
qualification.
(paragraph 8.3)
4 June 2009
Issues Referred to the Senate (or appropriate standing committee)
The Panel identified the following institution-wide issues as requiring the attention of the
Senate or the appropriate standing committee of the Senate:
2.5.1
To reflect sector practice and in the interest of patient protection, the Panel would
support the minimum qualifying mark in respect of some of the module assessment
elements on both pathways to be set at 40%. This was a view shared by the
Proposal Team. Accordingly, the issue will be referred to ASQRC/Deputy ViceChancellor (Academic) for consideration.
Quality Assurance Division
3
Confirmed
[Executive Secretary’s Note: the GoSC has since written confirming “component
thresholds should be set at the designated module overall pass mark, for modules
deemed to require a minimum competency for professional standards”. A 40%
minimum qualifying mark has since been implemented for all level 3 & 4 modules.]
Quality Assurance Division
4
Confirmed
SECTION B – DETAIL OF DISCUSSION AND PANEL CONCLUSIONS
3
RATIONALE
3.1
Since 2002, the University of Brighton has acted as the awarding body for the BSc (Hons)
Osteopathy delivered by the London School of Osteopathy (LSO). The decision to seek a
franchise relationship with Anglia Ruskin University was the result of a new Vice Chancellor
being appointed to the University of Brighton which resulted in a reduction in the number of
regional partnership agreements.
3.2
The MOst and BOst (Hons) both consist of 480 credits. The modules on both are exactly
the same except for the academic level: the MOst is an integrated taught Masters degree
comprising 120 credits at Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4, whereas the BOst is 120 credits at Levels 1
and 2 and 240 credits at Level 3. The pathways will be delivered to students on a part-time
basis for years 1-3 and full-time for years 4-5. The will be one intake per year commencing
October 2009.
4
INTRODUCTION BY SUB-GROUP OF PROPOSAL TEAM
4.1
A sub-group of the Proposal Team provided the Panel with an overview of the proposal this
included:







History of the relationship;
Delivery Pattern / Anglia Ruskin Academic Regulations;
‘SK2’ Standard of Proficiency / QAA involvement;
MOst / Bologna 1999 Agreement;
The Clinic;
Staff; and
Transitional Arrangements.
5
TOUR OF RESOURCES
5.1
The Panel undertook a tour of the resources to support the delivery of the pathways at the
LSO, including teaching rooms, ICT provision and the library.
5.2
The External Panel members initially expressed some concern at the library stock which
appeared limited to support the delivery and noted that a number of the texts appeared old.
During later discussions, the Proposal Team was able to reassure the Panel that the issue
of library stock was in-hand as there is an existing plan to replenish the library. (Condition
2.3.1)
6
CURRICULUM DESIGN, CONTENT AND DELIVERY
6.1
The Panel sought reassurance that there would be parity/equity of clinical experience on
the part-time section of the pathways. The Proposal Team confirmed that given the range
of clinical tutors and supervisors, students would receive a very broad overview and
breadth of experience in osteopathy. It was also noted that continuity of care with patients
was greatly encouraged in order to allow the student to observe a patient’s progress.
6.2
There was a discussion regarding clinical attendance and the procedure the LSO has to
record this. It was noted that there is an audit process in place and that students are given
a log of clinical assessment: to review their attendance record and to reflect on their profile.
This allows the student to determine whether there are any areas where they may be
lacking in their clinical practice: range of conditions and number of patients.
Quality Assurance Division
5
Confirmed
6.3
In terms of clinical hours, it was noted that students need to record a considerable number
in order to complete the pathways and that it is the responsibility of the students to achieve
this. It was agreed that information such as this should be clearly stated in the Student
Handbook.
6.4
The Panel asked how the two pathways differed and also who decides which pathway a
student will undertake. The Proposal Team explained that the environment for the MOst
and BOst (Hons) are the same but the difference lies in a students response and thinking
to a given situation which would differ depending on the level of study. It was noted that
the student decides which pathway to take at Year 4 and that the ability to transfer from the
BOst (Hons) to the integrated taught Masters award would be dependant on the student
meeting the required grade average (credit weighted arithmetic mean).
6.5
In terms of the MOst award, it was noted that the required grade average (credit weighted
arithmetic mean) would need to be explicitly stated on the PSF and that Academic Office
had suggested this be set at 60%, given that it is an integrated taught masters degree
aimed at high achievers. The Proposal Team appreciated the need for this to be clearly
stated but considered 49% to be more appropriate. It was noted that the required grade
average had yet to be decided by Anglia Ruskin. [Executive Secretary’s Note: subsequent
to the approval event, Anglia Ruskin debated the issue of the credit weighted arithmetic
mean. Academic Regulation 8.2 under Section 8, Student Continuation & Conferment of
Awards, now details the grade average (%) a student registered on an integrated taught
Masters degree will need to achieve in order to progress between specified levels: of at
least 60%.]
6.6
It was noted that levels 3 and 4 would be taught together and the Panel sought clarification
on how differentiation in experience and outcomes would be managed for students learning
at different levels. It was explained that the different levels would be given different
exercises, guided activities and reading lists. In the case of assessment, the same
scenarios may be used but the support and guidance would differ.
7
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
7.1
Discussions took place regarding the 30% minimum qualifying mark used for a number of
the assessment elements in the MDFs which the External Panel members in particular
considered to be low and had concerns that this could suggest the student is academically
sound but it may not necessarily mean they are good with patients. It was noted that in
order to set the level higher, the professional body, GoSC, would need to confirm its
support. The Panel was advised that to date this has not been forthcoming, as the GoSC
felt it was an issue for the LSO and Anglia Ruskin to decide upon. The Panel consider this
should be pursued and it was agreed to raise the matter with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor
(Academic).
[Executive Secretary’s Note: the GoSC has since written confirming “component thresholds
should be set at the designated module overall pass mark, for modules deemed to require
a minimum competency for professional standards”. A 40% minimum qualifying mark has
since been implemented for all level 3 & 4 modules.]
7.2
The Panel considered that the proposed semester delivery pattern required further
clarification, particularly in respect of the submission of assessment in week 18. It was
agreed that further discussions in relation to this would be handled separate to the event.
[Executive Secretary’s Note: subsequent discussions with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor
(Academic) have confirmed that the School’s revised proposal is acceptable.]
7.3
The Panel noted that Clinical assessment would be by portfolio and tutor reports and asked
how this would be moderated by the clinical tutors to ensure parity. The Proposal Team
advised that a clinical tutor would not be permitted to assess on their own without having
Quality Assurance Division
6
Confirmed
seen another do so. In addition, new tutors would spend up to three months shadowing
another when first joining the LSO before assessing on their own.
7.4
It was noted that there was a good range of assessment methods but that overall the
student workload was heavy. The Panel recommended that the Proposal Team keep this
under review to ensure it is kept at an appropriate level. (Recommendation 2.4.1)
7.5
The issue of Fitness to Practice was raised. The LSO explained one of the procedures it
has in place to deal with this: the ‘red flagging’ of a student for inappropriate
behaviour/unsafe practice. In terms of a student being discontinued, the way Anglia Ruskin
deals with this is via a Fitness to Practice Committee. The Panel concluded that the LSO
should be required to review the processes and procedures it has in place regarding fitness
to practice to ensure they match those of Anglia Ruskin. (Condition 2.3.4)
8
STAFFING, LEARNING RESOURCES AND STUDENT SUPPORT
8.1
A discussion took place regarding the various support roles such as the personal tutor,
student adviser and the buddy system, as the Panel was keen to ensure the appropriate
mechanism/level of student support was in place. With the exception of the Student
Adviser role, where it was noted that further clarification was required regarding the overlap
between the Student Adviser at the LSO and the Faculty’s, the other roles appeared in
order.
[Executive Secretary Note: the role of the respective Student Advisers has subsequently
been clarified and agreed upon.]
8.2
The Panel asked whether a research strategy was in place as the research interests of the
staff were not apparent within the documentation. The LSO tabled a list of Dissertation
Supervisors and their areas of interest which the Panel duly noted.
8.3
The Panel was interested to learn about the arrangements that were in place to support
and prepare staff in respect of the delivery of the Masters programme. It was noted that
the LSO has a rolling programme for clinical tutors and that staff development sessions
have been run in respect of teaching at Masters level. The Panel recommended that a
strategic staff development plan be formalised between the LSO and Anglia Ruskin and
that this should include an appropriate teaching qualification. (Recommendation 2.4.2)
8.4
The Panel enquired as to the measures the LSO had in place regarding Ethical Approval
for research proposals and projects. The Proposal Team confirmed that the LSO has an
Ethics Committee that considers such proposals. The Panel was keen to ensure that the
processes in place were sufficiently robust and match those of Anglia Ruskin. Accordingly,
the Panel made it a condition of the event. (Condition 2.3.4)
8.5
The Panel questioned whether there was sufficient osteopathic material available for
students at the School. The Proposal Team confirmed that there are very few key
osteopathic texts in existence and that its library focuses on subjects around osteopathy.
In terms of stock, it was noted that a plan already exists to replenish the library. The Panel
considered this to be essential. (Condition 2.3.1)
9
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
9.1
The moderation process was discussed and the Panel concluded that the LSO should
review the arrangements it has in place to ensure these meet the requirements set out in
the relevant Senate Code of Practice. (Condition 2.3.2)
Quality Assurance Division
7
Confirmed
10
NATIONAL, PROFESSIONAL AND STATUTORY BODY REQUIREMENTS
10.1
The question of whether a Recognised Qualification (RQ) review would be required in
respect of the new taught Masters degree (MOst) was raised by the External Panel
members. It was noted that the LSO had been in contact with the General Osteopathic
Council (GSoC) and that the latest indication was that this looked likely. Accordingly, the
Panel made it a condition of the event that confirmation in writing be sought from the GSoC
regarding this, together with the proposed timeframe. (Condition 2.3.5)
[Executive Secretary’s Note: the LSO has since confirmed to the Head of Quality
Assurance, Academic Office that the new RQ will need to be in place at the point of
graduation – June 2011.]
11
DOCUMENTATION
11.1
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 PSFs 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 2.3.6)
11.2
A discussion took place regarding the Student Handbook as the Panel had a number of
queries such as the role of the Student Adviser, Ethical Approval, Student Progression and
Rights to Reassessment. The Panel requested the Proposal Team produce a revised
handbook which addressed all the points raised during the event and those contained on
the Checklist. (Condition 2.3.3)
11.3
A number of inaccuracies were noted in the documentation which the Proposal Team will
amend.
12
CONFIRMATION OF STANDARDS OF AWARDS
12.1
The Panel confirmed that the proposed Master of Osteopathy (MOst) and Bachelor of
Osteopathy (Honours) (BOst (Hons)) pathways 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
8
11 August 2009
7 September 2009
date report agreed as confirmed
Confirmed
SECTION C – DETAILS OF PANEL MEMBERSHIP AND PROPOSAL TEAM
Internal Panel Members:
Marian Redding (Chair)
Head of Modular Programmes
Lynn Snape
Senior Lecturer
Admissions Tutor
Ashcroft International Business School
David Wright
Deputy Head of Department, Child & Family Studies
Faculty of Health & Social Care
External Panel Members:
Nick Woodhead
Course Leader, MSc Osteopathy in the Cranial Field,
British School of Osteopathy
Co-ordinator, senior undergraduate lecturer & practical osteopathic
skills tutor (part-time) Involuntary Motion Studies, British School of
Osteopathy
Full-time clinical osteopathic practice
Fiona Walsh
Senior Lecturer in Practical Osteopathic Skills
British School of Osteopathy London, BOst Programme
Part-time Teacher MSc in Osteopathy, Vienna School
of Osteopathy
Practising Osteopath
Executive Officer:
Sara Elliott
Faculty Quality Assurance Officer,
Faculty of Health & Social Care,
Academic Office
Technical Officer:
Helen Sismey,
Academic Regulations Assistant,
Academic Office
Members of Proposal Team:
Mary Parsons
Head of Department, Allied Health,
Faculty of Health and Social Care
Partner College
Proposal Team:
London School of Osteopathy Staff:
Ms Fiona Hamilton
Course Leader & Module Leader
Dr Maria Caunce
Director of Quality Enhancement & Module Leader
Mr Simon Chafer
Module Leader & Clinic Tutor
Ms Miranda Clayton
Module Leader
Quality Assurance Division
9
Confirmed
Dr Martin Collins
Module Leader for Research & Criticality
and the Major Project.
Mrs Yasmin D'Souza
Registrar
Mr Ian Harrison
Module Leader
Mr Robin Kirk
Principal & Module Leader
Ms Dawn Limbert
Module Leader & Clinic Tutor
Dr Sandra Martelli
Module Leader
Mr Matthew McKenzie
IT Officer
Mr Avin Patel
Module Leader
Ms Phyllis Woodfine (unable to attend the approval event)
Student Advisor & Clinic Tutor
Quality Assurance Division
10
Confirmed
SECTION D – OUTCOME DATA
Programme
Department
Faculty
Collaborative Partner
New/amended Awards
Approved (nb intended awards
Allied Health
Allied Health
Faculty of Health & Social Care
London School of Osteopathy
Title(s) of Named Pathway(s)
Attendance mode
and duration
only, not intermediate awards)
Bachelor (Hons) (BOst
(Hons))
Osteopathy
Part-time years 1-3
& full-time years 4-5
Master (MOst)
Osteopathy
Part-time years 1-3
& full-time years 4-5
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)
Fiona Hamilton (LSO) Mary Parsons (ARU)
October 2009
September or October, once a year
35 (23 FTE) in years 1-3 and 35 in years 4-5
NEW MODULES APPROVED
DL130039D*
DL115033S
DL130040D
DL115034S
DL130041D
DL230099D
DL230100D
DL230101D
DL230102D
DL330107D
DL330113D
DL330108D
DL330109D
DL330999D
DL330110D
DL330111D
DL330112D
DL430999D
DL430081D
DL430082D
DL430083D
Anatomy and Physiology: NMS
Anatomy and Physiology: Visceral
Osteopathy 1: Acquisition
Anatomy and Physiology: Head and Neck
Osteopathy 2: Understanding
Anatomy and Physiology: Neurology
Clinical Pathology
Osteopathy 3: Analysis
Professional Studies: Yr 3
Differential Diagnosis
Research and Criticality
Osteopathy 4: Evaluation
Professional Studies: Yr 4
Major Project
Portfolio: Yr 5
Osteopathy 5: Autonomy
Professional Studies: Yr 5
Major Project
Portfolio: Yr 5
Osteopathy 5: Autonomy
Professional Studies: Yr 5
Quality Assurance Division
11
Confirmed
FOR FRANCHISE APPROVALS ONLY: LIST OF MODULE TUTORS AND MODULE CODES & TITLES
(FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGISTER OF TEACHING STAFF)
Name of Teaching Staff
Module Code & Title
Pathway title: BOst
Name of partner institution: London School of Osteopathy
Name of staff member
Sandra Martelli
Maria Caunce
Simon Chafer
Colin Stolkin
Miranda Clayton
Colin Stolkin
Robert Elliot
Dawn Limbert
Ian Harrison
Avin Patel
Martin Collins
Tony Carew
Nico Tanguy
Robin Kirk
Fiona Hamilton
Robin Kirk
Miranda Clayton
Module Code
DL130039D*
DL115033S
DL130040D
DL115034S
DL130041D
DL230099D
DL230100D
DL230101D
DL230102D
DL330107D
DL330113D
DL330108D
DL330109D
DL330999D
DL330110D
DL430082D
DL430083D
Module Title
Anatomy & Physiology: NMS
Anatomy & Physiology: viscera
Osteopathy: Yr 1 Acquisition
Anatomy & Physiology: head & neck
Osteopathy: Yr 2 Understanding
Anatomy & Physiology: neurology
Clinical Pathology
Osteopathy: Yr 3 Analysis
Professional Studies Yr 3
Differential Diagnosis
Research & Criticality
Osteopathy: Yr 4 Evaluation
Professional Studies Yr 4
Major Project
Portfolio Yr 5
Osteopathy: Yr 5 Autonomy
Professional Studies Yr 5
Pathway title: MOst
Name of partner institution: London School of Osteopathy
Name of staff member
Sandra Martelli
Maria Caunce
Simon Chafer
Colin Stolkin
Miranda Clayton
Colin Stolkin
Robert Elliot
Dawn Limbert
Ian Harrison
Avin Patel
Martin Collins
Tony Carew
Nico Tanguy
Robin Kirk
Fiona Hamilton
Robin Kirk
Miranda Clayton
Quality Assurance Division
Module Code
DL130039D*
DL115033S
DL130040D
DL115034S
DL130041D
DL230099D
DL230100D
DL230101D
DL230102D
DL330107D
DL330113D
DL330108D
DL330109D
DL430999D
DL430081D
DL430082D
DL430083D
Module Title
Anatomy & Physiology: NMS
Anatomy & Physiology: viscera
Osteopathy: Yr 1 Acquisition
Anatomy & Physiology: head & neck
Osteopathy: Yr 2 Understanding
Anatomy & Physiology: neurology
Clinical Pathology
Osteopathy: Yr 3 Analysis
Professional Studies Yr 3
Differential Diagnosis
Research & Criticality
Osteopathy: Yr 4 Evaluation
Professional Studies Yr 4
Major Project
Portfolio Yr 5
Osteopathy: Yr 5 Autonomy
Professional Studies Yr 5
12
Confirmed