(click to start). belgian passengers stranded in brussels among those passengers was dr. vyt, a...
TRANSCRIPT
(click to start)
Belgian passengers stranded in BrusselsAmong those passengers was dr. Vyt, a scientist involved in an EIPEN workshop today in London. “The European Interprofessional Education Network will have to do without me today, but they will hear of me!”, he stated while working on his laptop.
A preliminary remark
• In this slideshow, some slides are marked with . These are slides that require reading quite some text. If you’re done with reading, you can raise your hand so that Nikos can click for the next slide.
• Let’s try if it works. This slide contains text, and a red dot, so?
• - thank you, Nikos
A case study: the departure• A person travels at 6.00 am to Brussels to get the early
Eurostar train to London (as no confirmation of cancelling was available online), or to get a ticket refund. (Detail: the journey between Brussels and any other railway station in Belgium is comprised in the Eurostar ticket.)
• Desk officers of Eurostar tell to go to the ticketing office of Belgium Railways (place of purchase) to get a full refund, as all Eurostar trains are cancelled.
• At the Belgian Railways ticketting office, the officer tells that a refund is not possible because the ticket is stamped already on the train when commuting to Brussels. They provide a (French unilingual) form for sending remarks (together with the tickets) to the customers’ office.
• No supervisor is available to intervene. The cashier states that internal auditing procedures prohibit her to refund. If in this audit the superviser would see that the ticket has been stamped, the cashier has to reimburse the refunded ticket out of his/her own pocket.
A case study: solution and return?• The unfortunate but decisive client goes to the Eurostar
customers office to explain the situation, and warning that this can result in several hundreds of very dissatisfied clients. The Eurostar management office, about 20 metres away from the Belgian Railways office, sends a fax to the latter, asking/pressuring them to give green light for immediate reimbursement.
• The person goes back to the Belgian Railways ticketing office, where now reimbursement is handled by credit card. Immediate reimbursement in cash is impossible because the procedure implies that reimbursement is done by the same means of payment (credit card) as used in buying the ticket.
• Tickets have to be left at the office for filing. Problem for the client: how to get back to Ghent from Brussels without tickets? The person receives a form to be filled out, and to be sent with the ticket to – right - the customers service for reimbursement.
What do we learn from this ? (1)
• Quality assurance is frequently and almost automatically associated with procedures and norms that are in place.
• It is too easy to criticize procedures in se: they are necessary, but three basic procedures that are frequently absent, are:– A procedure for how to check procedures for their
fitness-for-use– A procedure for signalling problems in practice, to
ensure revision of a procedure– A procedure for empowering people working with
procedures so that they are convinced that procedures are means for quality assurance, and no goals in se.
What do we learn from this? (2)
• Quality assurance (QA) needs to hold a balance between focus on– Procedures vs. people involved in the
procedures– Processes vs. products and outcomes of
these processes– Individual actions and team orientation of
these individuals– Satisfaction of clients vs. wellbeing of
personnel
• …and in fact should eliminate the “vs.”!
Recommendations on QA in IPE should take those kind of
balances into close consideration from the viewpoint of Total
Quality Management
Check it out with :
• Does the direction of the unit explicitly stimulate interdisciplinary cooperation?
• Are most colleagues willing to work together across disciplines?
• Do most colleagues engage spontaneously in consulting and cooperating with other disciplines?
• Are there persons who are especially skilled in coaching multiprofessional teams?
• Are task descriptions written out in relation to other disciplines?
• Do the working groups always have clear goals in organising meetings?
www.prose.be
IPE between internal and external mechanisms
Quality assurance of IPE
National and European regulations and
frameworks on QA
Internal quality management system
and mechanisms
National and European regulations and frameworks on
restructuring education and training
Internal practices and mechanisms of
innovation in teaching and learning
European standards for internal quality assurance: Can you guess which one is not an official standard?
1. Institutions should develop and implement a strategy for the continuous enhancement of quality. The strategy, policy and procedures should have a formal status and be publicly available. They should also include a role for students and other stakeholders.
2. Institutions should have formal mechanisms for the approval, periodic review and monitoring of their programmes and awards.
3. Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations and procedures which are applied consistently.
4. Institutions should have ways of satisfying themselves that staff involved with the teaching of students are qualified and competent to do so.
5. Institutions should ensure that the resources available for the support of student learning are adequate and appropriate for each programme offered.
6. Institutions should ensure an efficient organisational structure and management to provide and support academic programmes
7. Institutions should ensure that they collect, analyse and use relevant information for the effective management of their programmes of study and other activities.
8. Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and objective information about the programmes and awards they are offering.
Standards for internal quality assurance: one is not an official standard
1. Institutions should develop and implement a strategy for the continuous enhancement of quality. The strategy, policy and procedures should have a formal status and be publicly available. They should also include a role for students and other stakeholders.
2. Institutions should have formal mechanisms for the approval, periodic review and monitoring of their programmes and awards.
3. Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations and procedures which are applied consistently.
4. Institutions should have ways of satisfying themselves that staff involved with the teaching of students are qualified and competent to do so.
5. Institutions should ensure that the resources available for the support of student learning are adequate and appropriate for each programme offered.
6. Institutions should ensure an efficient organisational structure and management to provide and support academic programmes
7. Institutions should ensure that they collect, analyse and use relevant information for the effective management of their programmes of study and other activities.
8. Institutions should regularly publish up to date, impartial and objective information about the programmes and awards they are offering.
Amazing ?
Is organizational efficiency less important in quality assurance?
Some examples of QA failures in IPE
• Different competence-driven study programmes of health care working together on IPE, but lacking a consensus on the IP competences to achieve
• Nice IPE undergraduate trajectories for acquisition of basic elements, but without stimulation of postgraduate or lifelong learning on IPW
• IPE with different programmes closely collaborating and with intensive guidance from coaches in the different programmes, but without transparant guidelines for these coaches
• A competence-based assessment policy, and an IPE trajectory focusing on teamwork, but only assessing group assignments (so that individual failures on competences are overlooked)
We need clear IP competences and ways to ensure reaching them
European wide
Examples of performance criteria for IP competences
• Ways of perceiving/assessing contexts• Ways of talking to and about colleagues• Fine-tuning ideas and working methods• Planning and evaluating shared care• Avoiding conflicts and misunderstandings• Having an eye for cost-effectiveness• Having an eye for less “salient” but eventhough
needed professionals
Basic questions of the research
• What kinds of QA methods and processes for education and training currently exist across the European Union?
• What are the conditions required for QA of IPE?
• What are the implications for developing a European-wide QA system for IPE?
In alignment with:
• The Bologna declaration for higher education.• The Standards and Guidelines for Quality
Assurance in the Higher European Education Area, and the Framework for Qualifications in the Higher European Education Area (Bergen conference 2005).
• The Copenhagen process on Enhanced European Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training (Helsinki communiqué 2006).
Specific goals of the EIPEN research project
• Produce a list of articles, focused on development, implementation, and quality assurance of IPE programmes and projects.
• Shortlist the networks that have IPE as a focus or as a core activity, and describe how they contribute to quality assurance in IPE.
• Make an outline of quality assurance models and frameworks that are used in higher education.
• Produce a checklist of quality assurance, and an example of a QA procedure based on self-assessment, audit, and peer review.
• Develop a questionnaire concerning current practice in the quality assurance of IPE programmes in Europe. Establishing a baseline that can be used for good practice and benchmarking purposes.
• Make an inventory of interprofessional competences. Deduce a framework that can be used in higher education and vocational training. Link this framework to EQF. Produce a checklist of assessment criteria.
• Produce recommendations for competence-based working methods in teaching and assessment to efficiently reach the learning outcomes.
• Describe 3 illustrative examples of IPE, in which obstacles as well as success factors are taken up.
