UNCONFIRMED Validation of BSc (Hons) Occupational Th !ap" (#th ns) E$ nt h ld on % &ul" '()' at #*MI M t!opolitan Coll + , Ma!

oussi, #th ns )-) Outco. The Programme was validated for a maximum cohort of 30 students a year, for a period of five years commencing in October 2012, sub ect to satisfactory completion of the conditions below! )-' 1!2!1 Conditions That a dedicated space for specific occupational therapy s"ills training be identified and an action plan provided indicating the resources and e#uipment to be supplied to support delivery! That the Team expand and clarify the documentation in relation to practice education as follows$ to clarify the role and content of the placement passport% to reflect accurately the division of staff roles and responsibilities as they will operate at &'() (etropolitan *ollege% to include assessment forms for each placement within the practice education handboo"% and to ma"e more explicit the procedure to be followed to enable students with extenuating circumstances to ensure satisfactory completion of placement hours!

1!2!2

1!2!3

That the Team amend the programme documentation as follows$ to clarify the language of instruction in the different levels of the programme and the language+related programme specific regulations% to address issues within module descriptors as identified in discussion with the Panel% and to clarify the operation of attendance regulations!

The above conditions are to be met by /) &ul" '()'! 1

)-/

R co.. ndations The Panel recommended the Team to$

1!3!1 1!3!2

*ontinually review student numbers and recruitment in line with the availability of suitable placements! ,ource additional expertise in relation to occupational therapy in physical rehabilitation in order to support the existing team! Co.. ndations The Panel commended the Team on the following matters$

)-%

1!-!1 1!-!2 1!-!3

The provision of a clear and comprehensive student handboo"! The range of assessment methods employed within the Programme! The coherent structure for the development of "ey s"ills as students progressed through the Programme! Bac0+!ound Prior to the event, the Panel received the following information about the Programme$ Queen Margaret University (QMU) has been in collaboration with AKMI Metropolitan College (AMC), since 200 ! "hrough this collaboration, the #ollowing progra$$es have been %elivere% by AMC an% &uality assure% by QMU' ()c (*ons) +ogopae%ics (%ue to co$plete 20 , 2) (A Mass Co$$unication an% Me%ia Arts (at Athens an% "hessaloni-i) ()c (*ons) .hysiotherapy (at Athens an% "hessaloni-i) (A .er#or$ing Arts (Athens) ()c (*ons) /ietetics (Athens)

'

It is now propose% to e0ten% provision by o##ering the progra$$e ()c (*ons) 1ccupational "herapy #or %elivery in Athens! "he progra$$e is base% on the ()c (*ons) 1ccupational "herapy progra$$e as o##ere% at QMU until the review an% revali%ation o# 20 ! "here are so$e $o%i#ications to the content an% in%ivi%ual $o%ules to #it with the 2ree- conte0t an% the #acilities available at AKMI! "he .anel is there#ore as-e% to review the curriculu$ an% to approve the in%ivi%ual $o%ule %escriptors!

"he progra$$e cannot be accre%ite% by the *ealth .ro#essions Council (*.C) an% %oes not provi%e %irect eligibility #or registration in the UK! In%ivi%ual gra%uates $ay apply to the *.C #or registration as international registrants! As with $any other allie% health pro#essions, 1ccupational "herapy is typically taught at %iplo$a level in 2reece, although there is a growing interest in %egree level &uali#ications! "his woul% be the #irst UK %egree in the sub3ect to be available in 2reece! "he progra$$e operates over 4 years (4 levels) with 2 se$esters in each year! In all years, e0cept year 4, each se$ester is 5 wee-s in %uration! "here are place$ent bloc-s in every year! "he #irst two years will be taught an% assesse% in 2ree-! +evels 6 an% 4 will be taught an% assesse% in 7nglish! 7nglish language support will be provi%e% to stu%ents! / Co.position of th 1an l and o$ !all ! .it The membership of the Panel is listed in &ppendix One! The Panel, approved by the .ice Principal /&cademic0, the &cademic 1egistrar and the 2ead of 3ivision, comprised the *onvener, one internal panellist and one external! The primary aim of the validation was to approve the design and content of the Programme and to approve its delivery by the &thens team! The Panel was invited to recommend to ,enate that the Programme should$ be approved without conditions be approved sub ect to specified conditions being met or not be approved

The Panel was additionally as"ed to specify the date of the next programme review and /if desired0 to identify particular issues to be addressed by that review or in the annual monitoring reports! % Tou! of faciliti s )n view of &(*4s long partnership with 5(6 there was no re#uirement for the Panel to see all teaching facilities! 2owever, the Panel was shown the general facilities available at (aroussi and progress on the new building /due for completion in ,eptember 20120! The Panel noted that the specialist facilities and resources to support delivery of an occupational therapy programme were not yet in place! The 3irector of &(* provided assurances that texts identified in module descriptors would be purchased! 2e stated that students would be able to access a number of other libraries in &thens through an inter+library agreement, as well as using the facility at (aroussi! The Team would also investigate the extent to which individual chapters of boo"s could be made available via (oodle! 3

1ooms available for use in the Occupational Therapy programme included wor"shops currently used by the architecture programme, physiotherapy and early childhood studies! The Panel noted that occupational therapy students would re#uire access to a space that was prioritised for their programme! )n particular, students re#uired resources to explore activities of daily living /&370 and an area for creative wor"! &(* was as"ed to provide an action plan setting out the resources to be supplied as the programme developed! #cti$iti s of dail" li$in+ /&37s0 is a term used in healthcare to refer to daily self+care activities within an individual8s place of residence, in outdoor environments, or both! 2ealth professionals routinely refer to the ability or inability to perform &37s as a measurement of the functional status of a person, particularly in regards to people with disabilities and the elderly!

Basic ADLs (BADLs) consist of self-care tasks, including:[4]

Personal hygiene and grooming 3ressing and undressing ,elf feeding 9unctional transfers /getting into and out of bed or wheelchair, getting onto or off toilet, etc!0 :owel and bladder management &mbulation /wal"ing with or without use of an assistive device /wal"er, cane, or crutches0 or using a wheelchair0

Occupational therapists often e aluate !ADLs "hen co#pleting patient assess#ents$ Assess#ents #a% include & t%pes of !ADLs that are generall% optional in nature and can 'e delegated to others:[(]

*are of others /including selecting and supervising caregivers0 *are of pets *hild rearing 6se of communication devices *ommunity mobility 9inancial management 2ealth management and maintenance (eal preparation and cleanup ,afety procedures and emergency responses 1!i$at . tin+ of th 1an l

)n their private meeting, the Panel identified the following areas for discussion with the Programme Team$ 1ationale for programme 3emand, mar"eting, recruitment and admissions 7earning, teaching and assessment ,taff experience ,tudent experience and placement education (odules

The Panel had no concerns regarding the title, aims and ob ectives of the programme% structure and content% or the proposed programme management and #uality assurance arrangements! 3 M tin+ 4ith 1!o+!a.. T a.

& full list of staff attending on behalf of the programme team is in &ppendix Two! The *onvener welcomed everyone to the event and congratulated the team on the thoroughness of the documentation supplied! 3-) Rational fo! th 1!o+!a.. The Team explained the context for developing the programme! )t was stated that there was only one occupational therapy degree offered in ;reece! :y introducing this programme it was hoped to meet demand in &thens and, potentially in future, in the north of the country through extension of delivery to Thessaloni"i! &necdotal evidence suggested that employers struggled to find well+#ualified occupational therapists to fill vacancies! There was also interest in applying best practice from the :ritish model of occupational therapy to advance the profession in ;reece! The two clinical representatives expressed enthusiasm for the programme! They saw it as an opportunity to provide a high #uality occupational therapy training that blended theory and practice and prepared students for the range of roles occupational therapists could play! :oth clinicians indicated that there was a need to develop and expand the profession in ;reece! )t was emphasised that the programme had been designed to meet both <uropean and :ritish standards! )t was expected that some graduates would want to see" 2ealth Professions *ouncil /2P*0 registration! The *linical *o+ordinator reported that some graduates of the :,c /2ons0 7ogopaedics programme had been successful in attaining 2P* registration! )t was not "nown whether they had been able to ac#uire professional rights in ;reece by this route! The Panel was reminded that the ma ority of allied health professionals in ;reece wor"ed in the private sector! 3-' D .and, .a!0 tin+, ! c!uit. nt and ad.issions The Team ac"nowledged that part of their mar"eting strategy needed to involve raising awareness of the profession to potential applicants! (ar"eting would be focused on school+leavers although mature students were welcome to apply! The =

Panel #ueried the emphasis on physics as a "ey sub ect in the admissions criteria! )t was replied that in the ;ree" education system physics and chemistry were entry re#uirements for all health+related courses! )f these sub ects were not stipulated the programme would be seen as lower in #uality! )t was noted that placements would be re#uired in each year of the programme! The Team stated that they already had a networ" of private healthcare providers and would see" to develop further placement opportunities to ensure students received a variety of experience! )t was proposed to recruit a maximum of 20 students in 2012+13, rising to 2= in 2013+1- and a maximum of 30 subse#uently! The Programme 7eader affirmed that students would not be recruited unless sufficient placements were available! The Panel recommended that student numbers and placement availability be "ept under constant review, bearing in mind the need to have extra places to call on as a contingency! 3-/ 5 a!nin+, t achin+ and ass ss. nt The Panel were impressed by the use of over+arching themes in the programme structure and the clear way in which underpinning s"ills were developed from level to level! They also commended the Team on the wide range of assessment formats employed! The Team were invited to clarify the language of instruction at different levels of the programme! )t was stated that placements would be underta"en and assessed in ;ree" at all levels! 7evel Three and 9our would be taught and assessed in <nglish! The Team stressed that there were very few occupational therapy textboo"s in ;ree" so students would re#uire to read in <nglish throughout the programme and would thus become familiar with the relevant terminology! & glossary of "ey terms in both languages could be supplied on (oodle! The Panel noted that there was some inconsistency in the documentation regarding the language of instruction and as"ed for that to be amended in the final documents! )t was also noted that the programme specific regulations re#uired to be clarified regarding extra time in examinations and the maximum length of deferral allowed to enable a student to meet the )<7T, hurdle for progression to 7evel Three! 3-% Staff 6p !i nc The Panel as"ed about arrangements for staff development! )t was replied that all staff received a generic induction! 9urther induction was then provided regarding the procedures of the specific validating university! 1epresentatives from the *entre for &cademic Practice also provided wor"shops in ;reece focussed on the needs of 5(6 programmes! )t was noted that &(* was ma"ing increasing use of its virtual learning environment, (oodle! )T and librarian support was available to support both staff and students in the use of electronic resources! The Panel commented that while the staff *.s presented demonstrated strong experience in the areas of child health and mental health there was less experience in relation to occupational therapy for adult physical rehabilitation! The Programme >

7eader replied that all staff had some "nowledge in this area but that specialists could be brought in for guest lectures to ensure content was covered in sufficient depth! &dditional staff might be added to the team in future! The Panel recommended &(* to "eep this under consideration! 3-2 Stud nt 6p !i nc and plac . nt ducation The Panel commended the team on the thorough and user+friendly student handboo"! )t was confirmed that module descriptors would not be supplied in the handboo" but would be published on (oodle! ,tudents would also receive a complete pac" of contact information for sources of advice and support! )t was confirmed that students would receive <nglish language classes during the first and second years of the programme to prepare them for the )<7T, re#uirement of >!0 in order to enter 7evel Three! The Team also advised that classes and one+to+ one support would be provided regarding academic writing s"ills and avoidance of plagiarism! ,imilarly, the academic support department offered seminars on the use of reflection! The need to ensure occupational therapy students were facilitated to establish their distinct professional identity was discussed! )t was agreed it would be important for the group to have a space on campus that was prioritised for occupational therapy! The possibility of a student conference was also considered! The Panel sought to clarify various aspects of the management of placement education, which formed a central element of the programme! The respective roles of the Practice Placement *o+ordinator and Practice Placement Tutor were #ueried! )t was explained that this reflected arrangements in place at 5(6 and not the arrangements planned for &(*! This would be amended in the final documentation! The Panel re#uested more detailed information in the placement handboo" regarding the role and content of the placement passport, as the documents and certificates re#uired for this were not listed! )t was also noted that it would be normal for the detailed competencies re#uired for each placement to be set out in an appendix! The Team were as"ed to provide this information! )t was also re#uested that there be more explicit guidance on the procedure to be followed should students fall short of the minimum number of re#uired placement hours due to illness or other extenuating circumstances! )t was noted that the programme document stated that students who did not meet the re#uirement of ?0@ attendance in taught classes would not be allowed to sit for assessment! The Team explained that this did not happen in practice! )nstead students whose attendance gave cause for concern were counselled by their personal academic tutor and /if need be0 the programme leader! The Panel re#uested that this be amended in the programme document! The role of personal academic tutor was discussed! The Team stated that students would have the same personal academic tutor throughout their studies! <ach cohort also received support from a named level tutor! A

3-3

Modul s & number of specific #ueries were raised regarding individual module descriptors! O111B Conceptual 8oun%ations o# 1ccupational "herapy! The Panel #ueried the rationale for including a manual handling test in this module, and the high weighting accorded to the test! )t was explained that successful completion of the manual handling test was essential before students could attend their first placement! The Panel suggested, however, that the test could be mandatory without attracting credit! 1elated to this point, the Panel as"ed whether the content of the 8irst Ai% an% Manual *an%ling module should be credit bearing! )t was replied that this module had been developed as a replacement for the interprofessional education module in the <dinburgh version of the programme! 9irst &id was a standard element of the existing occupational therapy programme offered in &thens and its inclusion demonstrated parity! The Panel accepted this answer but suggested that manual handling best belonged in this module, rather than Conceptual 8oun%ations o# 1ccupational "herapy! )t was clarified that the assessments shown for the following modules were incorrect and would be amended in the final documentation$ Musculos-eletal Anato$y' "heory% .articipation in 1ccupation' Min%,(rain,(o%y an% Conte0t % and Musculos-eletal Anato$y' .ractical Application!

)t was confirmed that the following modules, which were taught in other programmes, would be delivered separately for the :,c /2ons0 Occupational Therapy /&thens0 and assessed separately$ *ealth an% 9el#are% and Musculos-eletal Anato$y' .ractical Application! &ssessments and learning outcomes would be ad usted to reflect the correct ,*59 7evel! O1122 :esearch )-ills The Panel #ueried the use of the term Ccritical appraisal4 in the assessment for an ,*59 7evel A module! The Team agreed to review this! O2122 .articipation in 1ccupation' Min%,(rain,(o%y an% Conte0t 2 The Team confirmed that they had experience in using classroom debates as an assessment method and that clear mar"ing criteria had been developed! The Team also provided a rationale for the assessment format in O313> 1ccupational "herapy' re#lecting on practice! The lin"age of group wor" and counselling in the module O-131 Counselling an% group,wor- in 1ccupational "herapy was discussed and the Panel were satisfied with the response! The Team agreed to clarify the use of a participation grade in the assessment for this module! The Panel advised the Team of some additional minor points in relation to individual descriptors and the Team undertoo" to consider these as part of their response to conditions! 7 Conclusion

The *onvener than"ed everyone for their contributions and wished the programme every success! ,heila &damson 12 Duly 2012

#pp ndi6 On 1an l <velyn Eeir 3r (ary Earnoc" ,heila &damson ,andra 1owan

Co.position of 1an l

,chool of 2ealth ,ciences, 5(6 *onvener ,chool of 2ealth ,ciences, 5(6 )nternal Panellist *ollaborations 3evelopment *o+ordinator, 5(6 ,ecretary )ndependent *onsultant <xternal Panellist

8MU facilitato! 7inda 1enton &cademic 7in" Person, 5(6

10

#pp ndi6 T4o 3imitris 3iamantis (agda 1emoundou 3r Panagiotis ,iaperas (aria :ogiatFi &i"aterini :ouri"a Tatiana Genou

M .9 !s of th p!o+!a.. t a. att ndin+ 3irector of &'() (etropolitan *ollege 2ead of &'() (etropolitan *ollege )nternational Office Programme 7eader, :,c /2ons0 Occupational Therapy /&thens0 *linical *o+ordinator, &'() (etropolitan *ollege 7ecturer, Occupational Therapy 7ecturer, 2ealth Psychology

*hristos *ommisopoulos 7ecturer, Physiotherapy .ic"y (allera"i )n attendance$ &lexandros Tsaggiadis &lma 'outsou Occupational Therapist, 9ilo"titis Occupational Therapist, ;alene Programme &dministrator

11