Page 1

FACULTY OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE Department of CPD Undergraduate Studies Professional Aspects of Pre-Hospital Care Student Intake: September 2013 Ormskirk Campus

Module Handbook HEA 2097S1 Professional Aspects of Pre-Hospital Care

Module Leader Chris Jones jonesch@edgehill.ac.uk 0151 5296242


CONTENTS

Introduction

Page 3

Learning Outcomes

Page 4

Assessment Strategy

Page 5

Assignment Guidance

Page 6

Assessment Submission

Page 7

Turnitin: Interpreting Originality Reports

Page 9

Confidentiality

Page 10

Learning Resources

Page 11

-

Appendix A: Online submission instructions Appendix B: Marking Criteria Timetable

2


INTRODUCTION

Welcome to module HEA 2097 Professional Aspects of Pre-Hospital Care. On successful completion of all the elements within the module, you will be awarded 20 credits at Level 5. This module intends to prepare the paramedic practitioner in the groundings of moral philosophy. The approach will focus upon issues and dilemmas as well as overarching theories. The focus of the module will be on discussing experiences and making sense of practice. Throughout the module I will be your module leader. My contact details are listed on this handbook cover. If you wish to arrange a tutorial outside the timetabled support, please contact me to arrange an appointment. This will ensure that I am available to see you and will prevent a wasted journey for yourself. This module handbook should be read in conjunction with your CPD Undergraduate Student Handbook available on the Edge Hill website, which details important information regarding confidentiality, academic rules, regulations and support. On behalf of all the staff within the Faculty of Health and Social Care, I would like to offer you a warm welcome. I hope that you enjoy this module and wish you every success.

Chris Jones Module Leader

3


ONLINE LEARNING

This module uses an online approach to teaching and learning. The online sessions are identified in your timetable. Each session is time released so will only become available on the date that it is timetabled for delivery. You will then have one week to complete that session and feedback from the tutor will be provided the following week.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

On successful completion of the module you will be able to: 1. Reflect on professional, ethical and legal dilemmas in pre hospital decision making. 2. Evaluate research and evidence based practice in relation to the pre-hospital environment. 3. Discuss the implications of professional registration in relation to professional codes of practice, accountability, responsibility and quality of care. 4. Examine the notion of ethical competence in relation to autonomous clinical practice.

4


ASSESSMENT STRATEGY

Formative Assessment Within this module a range of formal and informal assessment procedures will be employed during the learning process to support you in achieving the learning outcomes and to improve your performance in the summative assessment. This will include an assessment of your contribution to on line discussion and debate.

Summative Assessment The summative assessment for this module will be: Assessment will be an essay which calls upon you to reflect upon an incident, which caused you ethical, legal or professional disquiet. You will be expected to outline the source of the disquiet, to analyse its theoretical components and to draw some conclusions from your experience. 3000 words; This must meet Learning Outcome nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4; 100% of the mark. In order to pass the module the mark must be above 40%.

5


ASSIGNMENT GUIDANCE

This assignment allows you to reflect upon a situation in professional practice which has made you stop and think about the morality or the legality of your actions. By this I mean that you should break the event down into its ethical components and analyse what it was that gave you a problem and how you resolved it. Avoid the urge to simply describe the event. I am more interested in your interpretation of the event, its components, the moral theory, which applies to the situation and what you learned from it, if anything. There are past essays in the module content area for you to see.

6


ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION

Online Submission Date: 16th December 2013 Before 4.00pm Provisional Marks available by: Date: 27th January 2014

Your assignments should be generated electronically and submitted online. Instructions for online submission and the how to view results can be found in Appendix A of this handbook.

Non-submission will result in a fail grade being recorded.

7


General Submission Requirements (For written assessments) 

Assignments must be electronically generated and you must keep an electronic copy of your assignment.

Appropriate referencing should take place throughout your assignment, utilising the Harvard Referencing System. Useful information and advice can be obtained via the University’s website at: General Guidance for Academic Skills, including referencing: http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/ls/support/academicskills/#intro Full Harvard Referencing Guide: http://www.eshare.edgehill.ac.uk/1133/1/HR_guide_RevisedDec2011.pdf

In-text authors and dates of publication, the work you include in your reference list and any appendices you attach are not included within the word count. Direct quotations from other sources are included within the word limit. Appendices are not marked and are for information only.

Assignments are expected to adhere to guidance regarding the recommended wordage and failure to do so may influence the final grade awarded.

You are responsible for stating the word count when submitting your assignment.

The marking criteria being used in this assessment strategy are attached in Appendix B of this handbook.

Confidentiality and academic malpractice regulations apply to all assessments.

Please note if you are unable to submit your assignment due to sickness or other exceptional mitigating circumstances, it will be necessary for you to apply to the Head of Department for an extension or to submit an exceptional circumstances form along with appropriate evidence (e.g. a medical certificate/independent evidence).

The details of the external examiner responsible for the assessment of this module can be found within the Health Student Wiki at: https://go.edgehill.ac.uk/wiki/display/health/External+Examiners+-+Student+Info

8


TURNITIN: INTERPRETING ORIGINALITY REPORTS The Originality Report is a report that highlights text in students’ work that has been submitted through Turnitin and then displays matches with the database that have the same or very similar wording. This consists of all quotes and paraphrases that students have included in their work, as well as phrases, which are favourably similar to other sources. Turnitin compares students’ work with text from: • • •

Published books, documents, journals, and articles; Websites, databases, and information repositories; Work submitted to Turnitin.


The report also includes a Similarity Score, which is a percentage, indicating how much of your essay matched other sources in the Turnitin Databases. If you receive a Similarity Score of 30% this means that Turnitin has identified 30% of your work as being similar to existing work stored in the database. There is NO similarity score that the student should aim for as a target. The Originality Report is usually ready in 5-10 minutes post-submission but can take longer when the demand is high.

HOW TO USE THE ORIGINALITY REPORT EFFECTIVELY

Armed with your similarity score and the list of colour-coded web-based links that matches each source highlighted in your text, you can begin direct comparison for in-depth analysis of the use of sources in your work. Features of this analysis should include: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The amount of textual borrowing; The reliance on sources; The accuracy of citations; The effectiveness of paraphrasing.

The main aim of the report is to help guide the student to rewrite their work to the point that they feel confident about the content, as well as improve academic skills to avoid poor academic practice by recognising the various forms of plagiarism.

9


CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT

There should be no reference within your assessed work to any name or identifying information relating to patients/clients or any staff member of any organisation. Inclusion of such information will result in a failed submission. Where it is relevant to state the name of any organisation, the information should be supported by reference to published documents that are available to the general public and form approved official documentation relating to the operation and provision of that organisation. It would be considered relevant to include the name of an organisation when:   

Discussing/debating/analysing published data relating to the performance of that organisation. Discussing/debating/analysing published and approved policy and strategy of that organisation. Discussing/debating/analysing published research/evaluations/audit/opinion, which relates to and names that organisation.

Where the assignment requires reflection or analysis of specific practice/patient/client/service user scenarios, confidentiality must be maintained by the use of pseudonyms. Whilst retaining the essence of the scenario, where necessary some information may be altered to enhance anonymity, e.g., changing the number of siblings/children/place or type of work/accommodation or housing.

ACADEMIC MALPRACTICE AND THE PROFESSIONAL REGISTRANT

Students should be aware that as a registrant of a professional body, any proven academic malpractice issues, such as plagiarism or any other type of malpractice as outlined in the university's regulations and procedures in respect of academic malpractice, may be reported to that (professional) body and/or the commissioning agent. In addition, the university reserves the right to deny subsequent re-attempts in accordance with the university's regulations and procedures in respect of academic malpractice.

For further details relating to both assessment processes and regulations, please refer to the CPD Undergraduate Student Handbook.

10


LEARNING RESOURCES

Please use the library catalogue to access all your print and e-resources. Ashcroft, R.E., Dawson, A. and Draper, H. (eds.) (2007) Principles of Health Care Ethics. Chichester: Wiley. Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. (2009) Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. British Medical Association (2009) ‘The Ethics of Caring for Older People.’ Chichester: British Medical Association. Leathard, A. and McLaren, S. (eds.) (2007) Ethics: contemporary challenges in health and social care. Bristol. Mason, J.K. and Laurie, G.T. (2009) Mason and McCall Smith's Law and Medical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Runciman, B. and Merrilyn, A.M. (2007) Safety and Ethics in Healthcare: a guide to getting it right. Aldershot. Westrick, S.J. and Dempski, K. (2009) Essentials of Nursing Law and Ethics. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett. Journals  Journal of Clinical Effectiveness  Journal of Trauma  Ambulance Practice Journal  Accident & Emergency Nursing (UK)  British Medical Journal  Journal of Medical Ethics  British Journal of Anaesthesia  Anaesthesia and Analgesia Online Journals  Criminal Justice Ethics  Journal of Ethics  Journal of Medical Ethics  British Medical Journal

11


APPENDIX A Instructions for Online Submission TURNITIN Ensure front cover sheet is attached and completed prior to submission. Follow the following steps to submit your assignment through Turnitin. 1. Access http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/ 2. Login using your username and password 3. Access Learning Edgehill 4. Access the Module Area 5. Access Module Assessment Area 6. Click on Turnitin Drop Box 7. Complete form add Module Code 8. Click on Browse button to locate your assignment that is saved 9. Double click the file name to start load process 10. Select the upload button 11. Confirm content 12. Click submit You will receive an e-mail to your university account to confirm your assignment is submitted. Save a copy. Non-submission will result in a fail grade being recorded. Access and view feedback through Turnitin You will receive an e-mail to your university account informing you that your grade and feedback is available for view. Follow the following steps to view your grade and feedback: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Access http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/ Login using your username and password Access Learning Edgehill Access the Module Area Access Module Assessment Area Access Turnitin Click on your Assignment title View Grade and Feedback Click reply to comment on feedback

Save a copy of the assignment and store on the Z Drive Contact the Module Lead to report problems encountered with submitting the assignment through Turnitin and viewing your feedback. Please note that guides to submit work through Turnitin are available at: http://www.eshare.edgehill.ac.uk/883/ 12


APPENDIX B

Assignment Marking Criteria: Academic Level 5 Weighting Descriptor

Grade 90-100%

(Distinction)

80-89%

(Distinction)

70-79%

(Distinction)

60-69% (Merit)

50-59% (Pass)

40-49%

(Pass)

Relevant knowledge and understanding

75% Application of theory to practice

Level of analysis

Level of investigation and use of supporting evidence

(If relevant) Deep knowledge of the topic, explicitly related to comprehensive knowledge of the discipline(s). Utilises excellent questioning approach to reach an insightful structured conclusion. Thorough, explicit knowledge and understanding of the topic. Clear understanding of the explicit links to some aspects of the wider field.

Deep knowledge and understanding and application of theories and principles to practice.

Excellent analysis and synthesis of elements of the argument, including contrary views with excellent reflection.

Extensive evidence /references used effectively and cited accurately. Draws from a wide range of relevant sources to support discussion.

Thorough, explicit knowledge and understanding and application of theories and principles to practice.

High level of ability to analyse and reflect critically, using a range of perspectives.

Evidence/ references used effectively and cited accurately. Draws from a range of relevant sources to support discussion.

Thorough, explicit knowledge and understanding of the topic. Ability to accurately use terminology.

Thorough, explicit knowledge and understanding and application of theories and principles to practice. Applies theories and principles to situations and practice in comprehensive manner.

Demonstrates the good use of analytical skills and the process of reflection.

Evidence/ references used effectively and cited accurately. Utilises relevant material to support discussion.

Demonstrates analysis of key issues and the ability to use reflective skills, where appropriate.

Evidence/ references used effectively to support discussion and cited accurately.

Sound, partially implicit, knowledge and understanding of topic issues. Ability to use terminology.

Applies theories and principles to situations/ practice.

Demonstrates some analysis of key issues and use of reflective skills, where appropriate.

Demonstrates a developing ability to use evidence/ references effectively and accurately.

Lacks depth and breadth in coverage of the subject matter. Meets assessment outcomes at threshold level.

Identifies fact and principles and applies them to situations/ practice.

Developing some ability to analyse key issues and use of reflective skills, where appropriate, but a tendency to be descriptive.

Broad evidence of reading/ investigation. Some use of references and sources cited.

Good knowledge and understanding of topic issues. Ability to accurately use terminology.

13

25% Structure presentation and grammar

Excellent structure and standard of presentation. Relevant and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines. Well-structured and high standard of presentation. Relevant and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines. Clearly and logically presented. Grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines. Clearly structured and presented. Relevant and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines. Well structured, presented and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines. Generally satisfactory presentation and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.


Assignment Marking Criteria: Academic Level 5 continued ‌ Weighting Descriptor

Grade 30-39% (Fail)

20- 29% (Fail)

10-19% (Fail)

1-9% (Fail)

0%

Relevant knowledge and understanding

75% Application of theory to practice

Level of analysis

Level of investigation and use of supporting evidence

(If relevant)

25% Structure presentation and grammar

Basic implicit knowledge of some relevant topic issues. Partial understanding. Assessment outcomes are not met. Inadequate knowledge or understanding of topic issues. Some factual errors. Assessment outcomes are not met.

Demonstrates limited application of theory to practice.

Limited evidence of analysis.

Limited reading/ investigation. Incomplete use of references. Majority of sources not cited.

Spelling and grammatical errors. Limited logical progression. Some inappropriate use of language.

Demonstrates little application of theory to practice.

Little evidence of analysis.

Insufficient reading/ investigation. Incomplete use of references. Most sources not cited.

Many spelling and grammatical errors. Very limited logical progression. In the main inappropriate use of language.

Inadequate knowledge or understanding of topic issues. Several factual errors. Assessment outcomes are not met.

No application of theory to practice.

No evidence of analysis.

Lacks evidence of reading/ investigation. Incomplete use of references. Most sources not cited.

Many spelling and grammatical errors. Disorganised – lacks logical progression and inappropriate use of language.

No knowledge or No application of No evidence No supporting No logical structure. understanding of topic theory to of analysis. evidence. Incomplete sentences. issues. practice. Incomprehensible Many factual errors. content. Assessment outcomes are not met. Late submissions without relevant permission. Evidence of academic malpractice as defined by Institutional Policy. Major breach of confidentiality. Evidence of unsafe/harmful or discriminatory practice or presentation of misinformation. Failure to generate assignment electronically.

14


Reflective Marking Criteria: Academic Level 5 Weighting Descriptor

Grade 90-100%

Relevant knowledge and understanding Deep knowledge of the topic, explicitly related to comprehensive knowledge of the discipline(s). Utilises excellent questioning approach to reach an insightful structured conclusion.

80-89%

Thorough, explicit knowledge and understanding of the topic. Clear understanding of the explicit links to some aspects of the wider field.

70-79%

Thorough, explicit knowledge and understanding of the topic. Ability to accurately use terminology.

75% Application of reflection to practice

Level of analysis

Deep knowledge and understanding, analysis and application or theories and principles of reflection to practice. Well developed application of a reflective model with a strong rationale for choice. Demonstrates perspective transformation and the ability to problem solve. A detailed action plan is evident. Work is characterised by an ability to deconstruct and reconstruct the experience. Strong evidence of learning through the reflective process and reflective skills. Evidence of some original thinking and a creative approach. Thorough, explicit knowledge, understanding and analysis of reflection, with application of theories and principles to practice. A reflective framework is identified and applied consistently with a sound rationale for choice. Demonstrates some perspective transformation and there is evidence of learning and action planning. Adopts a creative, problem solving approach with evidence of reflective skills. Thorough, explicit knowledge, understanding of reflection with analysis and application of reflective theories and principles to practice. Identifies and uses a reflective model throughout. A rationale for choice is discussed. Identifies and analyses key issues from the experience. Evidence of learning through the reflective process with explicit action planning. Evidence of some key insights.

15

25% Level of Structure investigation presentation and use of and grammar supporting evidence

Excellent analysis and synthesis of elements of the argument including contrary views with excellent levels of reflection.

Extensive evidence/ references used effectively and cited accurately. Draws from a wide range of relevant sources to support discussion.

Excellent structure and standard of presentation. Relevant and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

High level of ability to analyse and reflect critically drawing on a range of perspectives.

Evidence/ references used effectively and cited accurately. Draws from a range of relevant sources to support discussion.

Well-structured and high standard of presentation. Relevant and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

Demonstrates the good use of analytical skills in the process of reflection.

Evidence/ references used effectively and cited accurately. Utilises relevant material to support discussion.

Clearly and logically presented. Grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.


Reflective Marking Criteria: Academic Level 5 continued ‌ Weighting Descriptor

Grade 60-69%

Relevant knowledge and understanding Good knowledge and understanding of topic issues. Ability to accurately use terminology.

50-59%

Sound, partially implicit, knowledge and understanding of topic issues. Ability to use terminology.

40-49%

Lacks depth and breadth in coverage of the subject matter. Meets assessment outcomes at threshold level.

75% Application of reflection to practice

Level of analysis

Applies theories and principles to situations and practice in comprehensive manner. Evidence of a sound understanding of refection and analysis of key issues. A reflective framework identified and applied with some limitations. A rationale for choice identified but requires some development. Evidence of learning through the reflective process and action planning. Some key insights identified but not developed. Applies theories and principles of reflection to situations/practice, with some analysis of key issues from the experience. A reflective framework identified and applied with some weaknesses. A rationale for choice included but at a superficial level. Evidence of some learning and identification of some insight, but this needs further development. Action planning present but under developed. Some elements of descriptive narrative included. Identifies fact and principles of reflection and applies them to situations/practice. A reflective framework identified but with many weaknesses in its application, a rationale for choice may not be included or is poorly articulated. There is some ability to analyse the key issues arising from the experience with the inclusion of sections of narrative description. Underdeveloped action planning.

16

25% Level of Structure investigation presentation and use of and grammar supporting evidence

Demonstrates analysis of key issues and the ability to use reflective skills, where appropriate.

Evidence/ references used effectively to support discussion and cited accurately.

Clearly structured and presented. Relevant and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

Demonstrates some analysis of key issues and use of reflective skills, where appropriate.

Demonstrates a developing ability to use evidence/ references effectively and accurately.

Well structured and-presented and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

Developing some ability to analyse key issues and use of reflective skills, where appropriate, but a tendency to be descriptive.

Broad evidence of reading/ investigation. Some use of references and sources cited accurately.

Generally satisfactory presentation and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.


Reflective Marking Criteria: Academic Level 5 continued ‌ Weighting Descriptor

Grade 30-39%

Relevant knowledge and understanding Basic implicit knowledge of some relevant topic issues. Partial understanding. Assessment outcomes are not met.

75% Application of reflection to practice

Demonstrates limited application of the theory of reflection to practice. A reflective framework identified with major weaknesses in its application. A rationale for choice, if included, is simplistic or poorly articulated. Makes some attempts to identify key issues but tends to descriptive narrative. Identification of any learning tends to be weak. Some vague links made to action planning. Demonstrates little application of the theory of reflection to practice. No evidence of the use of a reflective framework. Little evidence of any understanding of reflection. No action planning or learning evident. Work is a descriptive. No application of theory to practice. No understanding of reflection evidenced or fails to identify a reflective model. Work is descriptive, with no action planning or learning.

Level of investigation and use of supporting evidence

Limited evidence of analysis and reflective skills.

Limited reading/ investigation. Inaccurate and/or incomplete use of references. Majority of sources not cited.

Spelling and grammatical errors. Limited logical progression. Some inappropriate use of language.

Very little evidence of analysis and weak reflective skills.

Insufficient reading/ investigation. Inaccurate and/or incomplete use of references. Most sources not cited.

Many spelling and grammatical errors. Very limited logical progression. In the main inappropriate use of language.

20-29%

Inadequate knowledge or understanding of topic issues. Some factual errors. Assessment outcomes are not met.

10-19%

Inadequate No evidence Lacks evidence of knowledge or of analysis. reading/ understanding of investigation. topic issues. Inaccurate and/or Several factual incomplete use of errors. references. Assessment Most sources not outcomes are not cited. met. No knowledge or No application of theory to No evidence No supporting understanding of practice. of analysis. evidence. topic issues. No understanding of Many factual reflection evidenced or errors. attempt made to identify a Assessment reflective model. outcomes are not Work is descriptive with no met. action planning or learning. Late submissions without relevant permission. Evidence of academic malpractice as defined by Institutional Policy. Major breach of confidentiality. Evidence of unsafe/harmful or discriminatory practice or presentation of misinformation. Failure to generate assignment electronically.

1-9%

0%

25% Structure presentation and grammar

Level of analysis

17

Many spelling and grammatical errors. Disorganised – lacks logical progression and inappropriate use of language.

No logical structure. Incomplete sentences. Incomprehensible content.


TIMETABLE Date 10 Sept 2013

Subject Contact Day. Aintree Campus Why should I worry about ethics? I’m a paramedic! Legal issues in paramedic practice 17 Sept 2013 Negligence and professional practice 24 Sept 2013 Mental capacity and the paramedic 1 Oct 2013 ‘Suffer little children…’ The Children Act and paramedics Moral issues in practice 8 Oct 2013 Moral theories 15 Oct 2013

Contact Day, Aintree Campus

Speaker Phil Crompton

Jacqui Hitchen Barry Williams Carol Wilson

Lucy Frith Kevin Henshaw Claire Emms Claire Malkin

Confidentiality and professional practice 22 Oct 2013 29 Oct 2013 5 Nov 2013

12 Nov 2013 19 Nov 2013 26 Nov 2013 3 Dec 2013 10 Dec 2013 16 Dec 2013

Honesty and truth telling in Kate Zubairu the field Moral dilemmas in triage: Craig Who goes into the ambulance first? Whistleblowing in public Bernie Garret service Advocacy and paramedic Andy Swinburn services Interview with Professor Mackway Jones Tutorial support Assignment submission

18

Hea 2097 handbook sept13