THE SENATE
PATHWAY APPROVAL REPORT
(Core Provision)
A confirmed report of the event held on 18 June 2009 to consider the
approval of the following pathways:
BSc (Hons) Midwifery
Faculty of Health & Social Care
Delivery of Pathways at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge
(Fulbourn) & 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.
1.3
The pathway will be located in the Child & Family Health programme, Child & Family
Health Department in the Faculty of Health & Social Care.
2.
CONCLUSIONS
2.1
The Panel recommends to the Senate the approval of the following pathway:

BSc (Hons) Midwifery
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.
The mode of attendance for the pathway will be full time – 156 weeks.
2.2
The Panel recommends to the Senate the approval of seven 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
2.3.2
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.
30 June 2009
Chair,
Executive
Officer &
Technical
Officer
9 July 2009
NMC
Reviewer
Chair &
Executive
Officer
The Proposal Team shall produce a revised
Document One which should be amended as
indicated during the event, to clarify and to
include specific reference to the following issues:

correctly reflect Standard 17 of the new
NMC Standards 2009;

supernumerary status during clinical
placement;

the timetable throughout the three years;

the operation of the Fine Grading Tool;

students experience of 24 hour care;

the 20% practice for teaching staff
requirement;

how the 12 week rule will be achieved;
and
Quality Assurance Division
2
30 June 2009
9 July 2009
NMC
Reviewer
Confirmed

amend the reference on the Fine
Grading Tool to University of Bradford.
This should be accompanied by a table
identifying where additions/amendments have
been made.
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 & Social Care will consider the
responses at its meeting of 13 October 2009:
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.5
Details of Recommendation
As part of the Faculty of Health & Social Care’s normal internal
processes for the on-going monitoring of its curriculum, it is
recommended that the pathway be re-evaluated with a view to
increasing the representation of practice in the award.
Deadline
16 July 2009
It is recommended that the Proposal Team continues to seek the
appointment of Practice Educators in Cambridge.
16 July 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
The existing BSc (Hons) Midwifery pathway was last updated in 2007 but due to the
planned introduction of fine grading of practice by the Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC),
effective from September 2009, the pathway required re-validating. Accordingly, the
pathway was amended to accommodate this requirement and, at the same time, the
Proposal Team took the opportunity to review and further developed the curriculum.
4
CURRICULUM DESIGN, CONTENT AND DELIVERY
4.1
The Panel asked whether there was an under 18s policy, given that the NMC had removed
the minimum age. The Proposal Team advised that the entry requirements for the pathway
includes A Levels and that to date all candidates had been 18 years and above. Should
any under 18s apply, in addition to needing to meet the entry requirements the necessary
risk assessment procedure would be followed.
4.2
The appropriateness of the title for the recently revised Infant Nutrition module was
questioned as it was noted that it had a predominantly breastfeeding focus, as did the
accompanying reading list. The Proposal Team explained that the module did include a half
day on nutrition and that artificial milk was covered, hence the title. The Proposal Team
agreed that the reading list would be reviewed with this in mind.
4.3
The Panel was satisfied that in addition to the use of the drug calculation software package
Authentic World, students would be appropriately assessed in practice, on a specified
number of occasions, in respect of this skill before being signed-off by their mentor.
4.4
The Panel enquired as to how the 12-week rule, as set out in NMC Standard 15
Assessment Strategy, would be achieved. The Panel was advised that any student who
fails would be required to re-submit on week 8 and if they failed again would be
discontinued. This was duly noted.
4.5
The Panel sought clarification regarding how and when the grading of practice would be
implemented as it was not clearly documented. A satisfactory overview was given and the
Panel was also provided with a handout prepared for mentors on the subject which, it was
noted, had been well received.
4.6
Proposal Team was asked to articulate on the 20% of their teaching hours in practice which
they were able to do so to the Panel’s satisfaction.
5
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
5.1
The Proposal Team acknowledged that the reference on the Clinical Grading for Practice
Grading Tool grid should be amended to read ‘adapted from the University of Bradford
Common Assessment Tool’.
5.2
In response to a point raised on the Checklist of Issues for a clear representation of the
hours in each year and the split between practice and theory, the Proposal Team provided
the Panel with a copy of the proposed timetable. Although this provided the necessary
detail for the Panel purposes, it was agreed that a brief written summary in respect of the
timetable should be added to Document One. (Condition 2.3.2).
Quality Assurance Division
4
Confirmed
5.3
The Proposal Team confirmed that with the exception of those students nearing the end of
the existing pathway, all students would be switched to the new pathway at the next
appropriate point. It was noted that this had been discussed with the students who
considered the switch to grading of practice approach would be of benefit to them.
6
STAFFING, LEARNING RESOURCES AND STUDENT SUPPORT
6.1
The Panel met with a total of seven students from Cambridge and Chelmsford who were
from differing years on the existing pathway. The students were very positive about their
experiences to date considering themselves to be well supported in both placement and by
Anglia Ruskin, knowing who to approach in a given situation. It was noted that there are
currently no Practice Educators in place in Cambridge although it was confirmed later by
the Proposal Team that requests continue to be made to the local Health Authority for this
to be remedied. (Recommendation 2.4.2)
Other areas discussed included:

the student experience;

24-hour care experience;

accessibility to sign-off mentors;

the student voice;

the students views on transferring to the re-approved pathway (grading of
practice);

practice skills; and

involvement with the development of the pathway.
The students had a slight concern in respect of the handing-in of assignments which they
felt might benefit from being more spread out as dealing with more that one assignment
could be quite stressful. Nonetheless this, they did appreciate that the current approach
was designed to give the student as much time as possible before hand-in date. The
comment was duly noted.
Those students present were highly complimentary about Student Services who, in their
opinion, provided an invaluable service and, as such, should be more widely and frequently
publicised.
6.2
The Panel asked whether there would be any increase in the commissioned numbers for
the pathway and it was noted that 2009/10 would roll on from 2008/09 but for 2010/11 it
was not yet known. However, it was noted that the shortened 79-week BSc (Hons)/Post
Grad Dip pathways, which the SHA has commissioned over two academic years, might
continue.
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)
Quality Assurance Division
5
Confirmed
9
DOCUMENTATION
9.1
The Panel commended the Proposal Team on the excellent documentation. However, in
the case of Document One, the Panel considered that the Proposal Team needed to be
more explicit regarding a number of key areas such as, the 12 week rule, the 20% teaching
requirement; supernumerary; and the implementation of grading of practice. It was also
noted that new NMC Standards 17 refers to competency and not proficiency and that this
should be reflected appropriately. The Panel made it a condition of the event that the
necessary changes are made and that a revised Document One provided. (Condition 2.3.2)
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. It was noted that these would need to be
submitted electronically to the Technical Officer. (Condition 2.3.1)
9.3
The appropriateness of the wording in the Student Handbook regarding pregnancy which
referred to the need for the student to have this confirmed by medical staff was raised, as it
was not considered to be in keeping with the ethos of the pathway. The Proposal Team
shared this view and although it was based on the University’s template, agreed to change
the wording.
10
CONFIRMATION OF STANDARDS OF AWARDS
10.1
The Panel confirmed that the proposed BA (Hons) Midwifery 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
6
11 August 2009
1 September 2009
date report agreed as confirmed
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
Chris Roostan
Lead Midwife for Education,
Department of Child & Family Health
Louise Jenkins
Midwifery Lecturer
Department of Child & Family Health
Wendy Tilbury
Lecturer Midwifery
Department of Child & Family Health
Trudy Stevens
Senior Lecturer
Department of Child & Family Health
Fran Galloway
Lecturer
Department of Child & Family Health
Marie Rider
Senior Lecturer
Department of Child & Family Health
Quality Assurance Division
7
Confirmed
Martina Donaghy
Lecturer
Department of Child & Family Health
Crispina Stanley
Midwifery Practice Educator
Department of Child & Family Health
Kate Palmer
Practice Educator
Department of Child & Family Health
Rebecca Mackle
Librarian
Academic Services Division
Alison Williams
SHA PEF
Jacquie Featherstone
Midwifery manager - Harlow Maternity
Students:
2nd Year Student, Chelmsford
3rd Year Students (x4) - Chelmsford
2nd Year Students (x2) – Cambridge
Quality Assurance Division
8
Confirmed
SECTION D – OUTCOME DATA
Programme
Department
Faculty
Collaborative Partner
New/amended Awards
Approved (nb intended awards
Child & Family Health
Child & Family Health
Faculty of Health & Social Care
N/A
Title(s) of Named Pathway(s)
Attendance mode
and duration
only, not intermediate awards)
BSc (Hons)
Full time – 156
weeks
Midwifery
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)
Nursing & Midwifery Council
Chris Roostan
September 2009
110 per year
NEW MODULES APPROVED
DM145001S
DM145002S
DM230079S
DM230080S
DM230081S
DM230084S
DM330087S
Essence of Midwifery Practice
Birth and Beyond
Nurturing Women and Families Through Health Education
Women and Families: enhancing wellbeing through a Public Health Perspective
Medical Challenges in Midwifery
Obstetric Complexities in Midwifery
Assessing the Health of the Newborn
Quality Assurance Division
9
Confirmed