Study Guide

Objective

The student:
- understands and is able to analyse the knowledge development in the social and/or health care area from a scientific theoretical perspective
- is able to evaluate and critically review development and research results in her/his own field
- is able to contribute to a research-based development of her/his own business

Content

Science theory
Critical evaluation and review

Location and time

The course is available on Moodle 21.10.2025-31.12.2025.
Course introduction 21.10.2025 (15:00 - 16:00) / Teams

Materials

THEORY OF SCIENCE:
- Polit, D. F., Flanagan, J., & Beck, C. T. (2025). Polit and Beck's nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (Twelfth edition.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
- Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Sixth edition. International student edition.). SAGE.

INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT:
- Streiner, D. L. a., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (Fifth edition.). Oxford University Press.

IMPLEMENTATION:
- Braden, C. J., & Braden, C. J. (2021). Nursing and health intervention: Design, evaluation and implementation (2nd ed.). Wiley Blackwell.

Teaching methods

Self-study
Lectures
Group work

Exam schedules

Module 1: Theory of Science and Instrument Development
- Instrument development (group assignment), deadline: XX.XX.2025

Module 2: Evidence-based practice and implementation
- Critical appraisal of a scientific article (individual assignment): XX.XX.2025
- Implementation plan (individual assignment): 31.12.2025

Student workload

5 ECTS = 135h

Lectures: 10h
Self-study: 70h
Group work: 51h
Seminar: 4h

Content scheduling

Module 1: Theory of science and instrument development
Module 2: Evidence-based practice and implementation

Further information

All written submissions are plagiarism checked.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential.
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments.
The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Assessment methods and criteria

Modules 1-2 are assessed on a 0-5 scale. Assessment is based on:
- Ability to analyse
- Ability to summarise relevant data
- Critical reflection
- Use of literature
- Use of Novia's writing instructions

To pass the course, all assignments (Modules 1-2) should be approved. Assignments must be submitted on time. Late submissions may lower the grade. Written feedback cannot be guaranteed for late submissions.

Module 1: 50 % of the grade
- Instrument development: 1-5

Module 2: 50 % of the grade
- Critical appraisal of a scientific article: pass/fail
- Implementation plan: 1-5

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

Modules 1 and 2:
- Literature is not referenced
- Reflections are not provided
- The technical design is lacking
- The overall picture and context are missing
- The assignment does not contain all required elements
- The criteria for grade 1 are not met
- The text is fragmentary and does not answer the questions

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

Modules 1 and 2:
- The literature is referenced
- Reflections are made only to a limited extent
- The technical design is satisfactory
- The overall picture and context are satisfactory
- The task does not contain all required elements

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

Modules 1 and 2:
- The literature is applied
- The text is reflective and critical
- The technical design is good
- The overall picture and coherence are good
- The assignment contains all required elements

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Module 1 and 2:
- The literature is analysed and applied
- The reflection is scientifically analytical
- The technical design is commendable
- The overall picture and context are commendable
- The assignment contains all required elements

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student
- has knowledge of the legislation governing out-of-home care
- is able to engage with, guide, and support children in care and their family members
- has an understanding of ethical issues related to out-of-home care
- understands the importance of maintaining well-being at work

Content

The care placement process and quality recommendations
Trauma-informed approach and establishing trusting relationships
The importance of daily routines and structure
Collaboration with parents and family-centered interventions
Multiprofessional collaboration
Restrictive measures
Running away from care placements
Ethical dilemmas and the sense of powerlessness among professionals
Personal resilience and coping strategies for child protection workers
Documentation

Evaluation scale

H-5

Qualifications

None

Objective

Student:
- is able to explain and apply legislation regarding social and health care
- understands the economics of social and health care as part of the social economy and the organisation's activities
- is able to describes and apply the basics of ​​budgeting and budget follow-up
- is able to explain the relationship between business and budget
- is able to evaluate and argue competition in public and private social and health care

Content

Social and health care legislation
Social and health care economics
Budgeting
Competition law

Location and time

Autumn 2025
Online 100% via Teams

24.10 lecture
10.12 seminar

Materials

Lecture material, scientific articles and other distributed material on Moodle.

Teaching methods

Lectures, self-studies and assignments

Student workload

The course covers 5 ECTS credits, totalling 135 hours of student work.
Lectures 3 h
Seminars 4 h
Selfstudies 128 h

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment: The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments. The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)

Assessment methods and criteria

In Moodle.

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

The text is fragmentary and it does not answer the questions.
The methodological literature is not used.
Reflections are not performed.
The technical design is lacking.
Does not explain the central concepts and basic principles.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

The questions are answered vaguely and narrowly.
The literature is referenced.
Reflections are performed only to a limited extent.
The technical design is satisfactory.
Refers concepts and basic principle.
Students have justifiable knowledge of quality management and improvement work and how these should be applied, as well as a deficient understanding of basic relevant concepts.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

The questions are answered.
The methodological literature is applied.
The text is reflective and there are critical points of view.
The technical design is good.
Understands and can explain concepts and the basic principles are based on literature.
Students have good knowledge of quality management and improvement work and how these should be applied.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The questions are answered exhaustively and in many ways.
The literature is analyzed and applied.
The reflection is scientifically analytical.
The technical design is commendable.
Has the ability to see connections and draw own conclusions.
Makes versatile use of literature.
Students have excellent knowledge of quality management and improvement work and how these should be applied, as well as a good understanding of basic relevant concepts and can use these independently and critically.

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- Knows data which can be utilized social welfare and healthcare.
- Knows especially data of national, regional and organizations in clinical laboratory activity.
- Is able to evaluate quality, reliability and usability of data.
- Is able to utilize data in development of biomedical laboratory science considering directing legislature, ethical principles and data management directions.

Content

Different social welfare and healthcare data, register-based studies, phases of data management., ethics and development of biomedical laboratory science by data.

Location and time

Fall 2025
Online implemented through the cooperation network BioRad

Materials

According to the lecturer's instructions
Given at course introduction

Teaching methods

Introduction to the course, self studies, individual assignment.

Exam schedules

Seminar with presentation of the students assignments

Student workload

The course is 5 cr which corresponds to 135 hours of work

Further information

The course is realized through the BioRad cooperation and responsible Universities of Applied Science are Turku University of Applied Science, Metropolia University of Applied Science and Tampereen University of Applied Science. Course material is found on Moodle of Metropolia.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Student recognizes directing legislature, ethical principles and data management directions in development of clinical laboratory activity. Student evaluates quality, reliability and usability of used data.

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Student develops clinical laboratory activity by utilize data considering directing legislature, ethical principles and data management directions. Student evaluates quality, reliability and usability of used data.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Student develops clinical laboratory activity by utilize data considering directing legislature, ethical principles and data management directions. Student evaluates quality, reliability and usability of used data critically.

Assessment methods and criteria

The course is graded 0-5. A passed grade requires passed individual assignments and active participation in seminars.

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

Bedömningskriterier finns på den gemensamma Moodle plattformen

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student
- is able to develop a professional paradigm as an advanced clinical nurse
- is able to critically analyse and evaluate advanced communication skills with patients/clients and employees
- is able to apply models for the reflection that shows complex overall needs of patients, family and environment in order to be able to practice the ability for critical analysis and evaluation

Content

Advanced clinical nursing care
Critical thinking

Location and time

spring 2024

Materials

Boman, E., Levy, M. R., & Fagerström, L. (2020). Differences and similarities in scope of practice between registered nurses and nurse specialists in emergency care: an interview study. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 34(2), 492–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12753
Boman, E., Glasberg, A.-L., Levy-Malmberg, R., & Fagerström, L. (2019). “Thinking outside the box”: advanced geriatric nursing in primary health care in Scandinavia. BMC Nursing, 18(1), N.PAG. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-019-0350-2
Boman, E., Levy, M. R., & Fagerström, L. (2019). Nurses’ understanding of becoming nurse practitioner role in the Norwegian emergency care context: A qualitative study. Nordic Journal of Nursing research. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057158518783166
Bryant-Lukosius, D., & DiCenso, A. (2004). A framework for the introduction and evaluation of advanced practice nursing roles. Journal of Advanced Nursing (Wiley-Blackwell), 48(5), 530–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03235.x
Kerr, L., & Macaskill, A. (2020). The journey from nurse to advanced nurse practitioner: applying concepts of role transitioning. British Journal of Nursing, 29(10), 561–565. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2020.29.10.561
Mackey, H., Noonan, K., Kennedy Sheldon, L., Singer, M., & Turner, T. (2018). Oncology Nurse Practitioner Role: Recommendations from the Oncology Nursing Society’s Nurse Practitioner Summit. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 22(5), 516–522. https://doi.org/10.1188/18.CJON.516-522

Teaching methods

Lectures, group discussion

Exam schedules

See Moodle

Completion alternatives

The written assignment instruction will be given during the lecture

Student workload

1ECTS=27H

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments
The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Assessment methods and criteria

0-5

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

The student did not achieve any of the criteria of academic writing and presentation of his/work

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject, points, conduct frail interview, and weak analysis of the results

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

The student has a good knowledge of the subject, conduct respectable and valuable interview, the analysis and the results presentation gave good knowledge about the topic

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The student shows an in-depth knowledge, the process of collecting the data and the results presentation enhance the knowledge and understanding

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
Can carry out work-life-related development work in the area of ​​social or health care in accordance with scientific requirements and ethical principles
Can collaborate on a development work together with the representatives of the working life
Develops a resource-enhancing and innovative approach in relation to development of operations
Can act as an expert in her/his own professional field and actively participate in the results of their development work in a professional context

Content

Thesis work plan
Master´s thesis presentation
Maturity test

Teaching methods

Seminars on Teams

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

The introduction is short, bland and does not lead the reader on the subject. The purpose is unclear / not entirely relevant and the question positions do not relate to the purpose / or become incorrect. The motivation for the subject choice is weak. The introduction gives a partially misleading / unclear picture of the subject. The purpose is unclear described and the logical connection of the questions to the purpose is weak. Motivation of the subject choice unclear.
The theoretical background and the starting point are based on preferably few sources and are very general and / or briefly described. An nonindependent referencing method is used. A certain source criticism can be perceived The theoretical background and the starting point is based on relevant literature but remains very general and / or briefly described. The sources are few and constitute a weak theoretical framework for the work. Source criticism is inadequate
The method selection description, method discussion and ethical discussion are rudimentary and incomplete. The outcome and method discussion, including a critical examination of the study, is not relevant with regard to the work. The conclusions are undeveloped and trivial. Parts of the method description, the method discussion and / or the ethical discussion are deficient. The result, method discussion / critical review are very superficial. The conclusions are trivial.
The result discussion is mainly referring, and is incomplete with regard to what is relevant for the purpose of the work. The presentation's logical rigor is weak. The feedback to the purpose is extremely weak in the conclusion, and a summary model / discussion is made The discussion of results is mainly referring to and some aspects that are central to the purpose of the work are treated incompletely or not at all. The presentation is, to some extent, not stringent. The feedback to the purpose is weak in the conclusion.
The summary of the work is inadequate. There are errors in the list of references and references. The presentation is weak and disjointed, the opposition shows the inability to critically review a text. Partially immature, troubled and indecent working method. The summary of the study / study partially flawed. There are some inaccuracies in the list of references and references. The presentation is relatively unsystematic, the opposition is purely referring. The work process has been characterized by some problems and an nonindependent working method.

Assessment criteria, good (3)

The introduction gives a sufficiently good picture for the reader to understand the theme and purpose of the study. The purpose and issues are logically linked to each other. The motivation for the subject selection is clearly described. The introduction gives a clear background picture of how the work relates to previous research and thus to the purpose. The purpose and issues are logically linked to each other. The motivation of choice of topic is interesting
There is a fundamental ability to synthesize and the theory forms a relevant background. The literature is relevant with regard to the theme and the theoretical starting point is appropriate. A good source criticism. The study is based on a good theoretical whole based on extensive and relevant literature, as well as a clear and adequate theoretical starting point. A good source of criticism.
The method description gives a comprehensive picture of the study's implementation, but without in-depth discussion of different method choices. The study has an extent corresponding to a Master´s thesis and is well implemented. The ethical discussion is concise but presents the relevant ethical issues. The critical review is extensive but not reflective. The conclusions are reasonable and relate to the purpose, but do not show any ability to reflect on this. The method description gives a comprehensive picture of the study's implementation and shows awareness of the advantages and disadvantages of the choice of method. The scope of the study is sufficient with regard to materials to correspond to thesis at master level. The ethical discussion is extensive and exhaustive in relation to relevant ethical issues. The conclusions are comprehensive and well-founded.
The results report is systematic but preferably referencing. The feedback to the purpose of the conclusion is clear, but brief and a clear reflection is lacking. The results report is correct, systematic and shows the ability for an independent reasoning. The feedback to the purpose of the conclusion is clear and comprehensive and demonstrates strengths and weaknesses in the implementation.
Good summary of the survey. Layout, source list and references follow standard. Presentation and exposure follow the instructions The work process has been smooth and largely independent. Very good summary of the survey Source list and references follow standard. The presentation is systematic and the writer shows the ability to develop and clarify his theme. The opposition is critical and constructive and shows a good ability to familiarize themselves with the theme of the opposed work. The work process is mature and largely independent

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The introduction is able to discuss previous research and knowledge on the subject and therefore sets the purpose in a scientifically interesting context. The purpose and the issues are logically linked to each other and it is a clear link to the purpose throughout the work.
The theoretical background and starting point are well-founded and well-written. A reflected approach to the theme can be seen in the work. The source usage is extensive and relevant, as well as showing a remarkable ability to source criticism.
The method description gives a comprehensive picture of the study's implementation and shows awareness of the advantages and disadvantages of the choice of method, and shows the ability to consider different options. The ethical discussion is extensive and exhaustive in relation to relevant ethical issues. The conclusions are comprehensive and well-founded; The writer is also able to critically evaluate these and show new perspectives and questions for further research.
The results report is well-structured, innovative and shows the ability for an independent reasoning. The feedback to the purpose of the conclusion is clear and comprehensive. Strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of the study / study are discussed. The work concludes with an interesting conclusion, well-founded synthesis and description of development opportunities.
Excellent summary of the survey. The source list and references follow the standard. The presentation is systematic and the writer shows the ability to develop and clarify her/his theme. The opposition is critical and constructive, and also shows a good ability to discuss and critically reflect. The work process is smooth, mature and independent. The work has that little extra that gives light power.

Qualifications

Research and Development 15 ECTS credits

Objective

The student:
- understands and is able to use qualitative and quantitative research and development processes and methods
- is able to apply a scientific and ethical approach in research and development activities
- is able to carry out a current work life-related development project

Content

Qualitative research methods
Quantitative research methods
Academic writing
Research ethics

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments. The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- is able to handle patients/clients' health and disease conditions, through adequate medical history, status assessment and treatment
- is able to perform structured health history and critically analyse and evaluate the same
- is able to perform a structured examination of the patient/client and critically analyse and evaluate her/his own intervention
- is able to apply the key skills required for diagnostics and clinical decisions
- is able to apply decision models to make differential diagnoses and then provide subsequent evidence-based care and critically analyse and evaluate the same
- is able to take responsibility for the patient's/client's health and illness conditions
- is able to teach and supervise patients/clients

Content

Physical assessment

Location and time

Attendance days' courses and times are available on Moodle

Materials

For the subjects critical thinking and clinical judgment please attach the following reading materials:
Clinical judgment- an essential tool in the nursing process
http://www.infiressources.ca/fer/Depotdocument_anglais/Clinical_Judgement%E2%80%93An_Essential_Tool_in_the_Nursing_Profession.pdf
What critical thinking, critical reasoning, and clinical judgment are?
https://www.elsevier.com/books/critical-thinking-clinical-reasoning-and-clinical-judgment/alfaro-lefevre/978-0-323-35890-3
Clinical reasoning instructor resourceshttp://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=113&sid=1d415f7a-433b-4674-a0a0-d28e4ee49a53%40sessionmgr115
For the subject of critical thinking and EBP please find the following material
Kitson, AL., Athlin, ÅM., Conroy, T Anything but Basic: Nursing’s Challenge in Meeting Patients’Fundamental Care Needs. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 46(5), 2012. Pp 331-339
Long, B.C& Phipps, W.J. & Cassmever, V. L. (1995). Adult Nursing A Nursing Process Approach, London U.K pp: 4-13
Lunney, M. Use of Critical Thinking in the Diagnostic Process. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classification.21 (2), 2010.pp82-88.
Lynda, F., Snyder, CH.. Evidence-based practice for the busy nurse practitioner: Par three: Critical appraisal process. Journal of the Academy of Nurse Practitioner. 24, 2012. Pp704-715
Robert, RR. Petersen S. Critical Thinking at the Bedside: Providing Safe Passage to Patients. MEDSURG Nursing.22 (2), 2013.pp 85-118.
Smith, SA Nurse Competence: A Concept Analysis. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge. 23(3), 2012 pp. 172-182.
Herdman, TH., ed NANDA International Nursing Diagnosis> Definitions & Classification 2012-2014. 2012 Wiley-Blackwell (this book can be found in Swedish)
For the subject of history thanking physical assessment
Hogan-Quigley, B., Palm, ML., Bickley, LS. Nursing Guide to Physical Examination and History Taking. 2012. Philadelphia, 11th ed. Wolther Kluwer Health Lippincott
Timby, B. K. (2013). Fundamental Nursing Skills and Concept. 10th ed. Wolter Kluwer Health. Lippincott.
Fagerstrom, L.M.( 2019), (red) Avanserat Klinisk Sykepleie. Oslo. Gylendal.

Teaching methods

Clinical examination, decision making and implementation of nursing care

Exam schedules

OSCE våren 2025

Student workload

1 sp = 27 hours

Further information

Each student is assessed on the basis of two clinical patient cases (case / station) at a time.
Time is limited to 30 minutes per student per station.
Students have 25 minutes to complete the three sections below.
Then the observer / examiner has 5 minutes to discuss the performance.
Students receive a brief description of the patient, as well as the instructions below.
• This is your first time meeting the patient.
• You have 25 minutes to go. Keep track of time! The observer then announces that it is 2 minutes left.
When the time is up, you must finish even if all parts are not completed.
• Information is provided by the "patient" or the observer during the examination, if asked / asked.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, approved/failed

The student:
Can receive feedback and shows willingness to develop professional skills
Can ask questions that are relevant for learning
Works in a planned manner and has accuracy at important work moments
Can perform tasks under supervision
Has advanced knowledge and can ask questions that are relevant to learning
Can follow directives and instructions and take responsibility for tasks
Can make decisions concerning tasks at advanced level
Knows the values ​​and consider the ethical principles
Can communicate and respond to patients/clients/customers
Can cooperate with others in the team

Assessment methods and criteria

Objective structured clinical examination (OSCE)
The OSCE Examination Form was developed in England in the late 1970s, and is used today in medicine and health education in several countries. OSCE assesses the student's clinical competence (knowledge and skills), problem-solving ability and interactivity. The arrangement means that there are different stations with patient cases (case)

Students are assessed on the basis of an assessment form (checklist of criteria), the content of which varies depending on the patient case.
All criteria are evaluated as follows:
• 0 = Fail (asks/acts not)
• 1 = Sufficiently approved (asks/acts but not correct / direct according to directive)
• 2 = Competent (asks/acts correctly)

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

< 49%

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

50-69%

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

70-89%

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

> 90%

Qualifications

SHV14AK02 Anatomy and pathophysiology

Objective

The student:
- understands and is able to analyse the knowledge development in the social and/or health care area from a scientific theoretical perspective
- is able to evaluate and critically review development and research results in her/his own field
- is able to contribute to a research-based development of her/his own business

Content

Science theory
Critical evaluation and review

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential.
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments.
The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- is able to create and articulate a personal and authentic leadership approach that culminates in a mission statement about continued learning is a key component
- is able to create a vision and develop behaviors to successfully lead a diverse group of people through uncertain environments
- is able to present a variety of interventions to enhance an innovative, sustainable and inclusive work environment by demonstrating cultural sensitivity and advanced communication skills

Content

Personal leadership
Value-based leadership
Communication
Team leadership
Power
Organisational culture

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the written exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and his/hers knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential. The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for assignment. She/he have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the written exam
The student can explain the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has mastered the substance of his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the written exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the possible seminar. The assignment and the possible role as an opponent show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the possible seminar

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- is able to create and articulate a personal and authentic leadership approach that culminates in a mission statement about continued learning is a key component
- is able to create a vision and develop behaviors to successfully lead a diverse group of people through uncertain environments
- is able to present a variety of interventions to enhance an innovative, sustainable and inclusive work environment by demonstrating cultural sensitivity and advanced communication skills

Content

Personal leadership
Value-based leadership
Communication
Team leadership
Power
Organisational culture

Location and time

Online (Teams)

9.9.2025, 15-17, Healthcare Leadership, Lotta Eronen
30.9.2025, Healthcare Leadership, Lotta Eronen
14.10, 15-17, Healthcare Leadership, Lotta Eronen
4.11.2025, 15-17, Healthcare Leadership, Lotta Eronen
18.11.2025, 15-17, Healthcare Leadership, Lotta Eronen
9.12.2025, 15-18, Healthcare Leadership, Lotta Eronen

Materials

Exam book:

In English: Reframing Organizations - 2021 or 2024
Lee G. Bolman, Terrence E. Deal

In Swedish: Nya perspektiv på organisation och ledarkap
av Lee G Bolman, Terrence E Deal
(Upplaga 6 eller 7)

More to be introduced during the introductory lecture.

Teaching methods

Online lectures and seminars.
Self studies: Literature, written exam and assignments (essays, reports, productions and portfolio)

Exam schedules

To be introduced during the introductory lecture.

Completion alternatives

To be introduced during the introductory lecture.

Student workload

10 ECTS credits equals a total of approximately 270 hours of work.
1 ECTS credit = 27 hours work.

Further information

The course is conducted in collaboration with Arcada.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the written exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and his/hers knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential. The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for assignment. She/he have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the written exam
The student can explain the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has mastered the substance of his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the written exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the possible seminar. The assignment and the possible role as an opponent show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the possible seminar

Assessment methods and criteria

To be introduced during the introductory lecture.

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

Student:
- is able to analyse social and health care organisations and consider social development
- is able to explain and investigate the main principles of organisational activities and leadership
- is able to analyse and interpret the organisation from a stakeholder perspective
- is able to critically examine the relationship between ethics, values ​​and leadership at different levels in the organisation
- is able to apply and analyse current, interdisciplinary research within the leadership area

Content

Organisational theories and their development related to social development
Modern organisational theories in today's social and health care
Strategic management and strategic thinking in the organisation
Creative organisations
LEAN
Organisational culture
Ethics and values ​​in organisations
Current interdisciplinary research in the field

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential.
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments. The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

Student:
- is able to analyse social and health care organisations and consider social development
- is able to explain and investigate the main principles of organisational activities and leadership
- is able to analyse and interpret the organisation from a stakeholder perspective
- is able to critically examine the relationship between ethics, values ​​and leadership at different levels in the organisation
- is able to apply and analyse current, interdisciplinary research within the leadership area

Content

Organisational theories and their development related to social development
Modern organisational theories in today's social and health care
Strategic management and strategic thinking in the organisation
Creative organisations
LEAN
Organisational culture
Ethics and values ​​in organisations
Current interdisciplinary research in the field

Location and time

Autumn 2025
Online course in Teams
Lectures 4.9, 22.9
Compulsory seminar 21.10

Materials

Material on Moodle.

Exam schedules

Information in Moodle

Student workload

In total 5 ECTS, 135 hours
Lectures 9h
Selfstudies 126 h

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential.
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments. The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Assessment methods and criteria

The basis for the course's examination consists of:
- A written individual submission, graded according to 0-5
- A group work, graded 0-5

Feedback on the tasks is obtained through assessment criteria, more detailed justification is obtained when contacting the course's teacher.

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

The text is fragmentary and it does not answer the questions.
The methodological literature is not used.
Reflections are not performed.
The technical design is lacking.
Does not explain the central concepts and basic principles.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

The questions are answered vaguely and narrowly.
The literature is referenced
Reflections are performed only to a limited extent.
The technical design is satisfactory.
Refers concepts and basic principle
Students have justifiable knowledge of quality management and improvement work and how these should be applied, as well as a deficient understanding of basic relevant concepts.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

The questions are answered.
The methodological literature is applied.
The text is reflective and there are critical points of view.
The technical design is good
Understands and can explain concepts and the basic principles are based on literature. Students have good knowledge of quality management and improvement work and how these should be applied,

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The questions are answered exhaustively and in many ways.
The literature is analyzed and applied.
The reflection is scientifically analytical.
The technical design is commendable.
Has the ability to see connections and draw own conclusions
Makes versatile use of literature
Students have excellent knowledge of quality management and improvement work and how these should be applied, as well as a good understanding of basic relevant concepts and can use these independently and critically

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- understands and is able to use qualitative and quantitative research and development processes and methods
- is able to apply a scientific and ethical approach in research and development activities
- is able to carry out a current work life-related development project

Content

Qualitative research methods
Quantitative research methods
Academic writing
Research ethics

Location and time

Part 1. Academic writing and Research ethics, conducted entirely online. The course is available on Moodle 11.11.2025-31.12.2025. Course introduction (1h) (11.11.2025) and one remote (25.11.2025) guidance (1h ) during the course.

Part 2. Qualitative methods, conducted entirely online. The course is available on Moodle 1.1.2026-31.5.2026. Course introduction (1h) and four remote guidance (1h each) during the course.

Part 3. Quantitative methods, conducted entirely online. The course is available on Moodle in Autumn semester 2026.

Materials

Course literature (suggestions below): student chooses a book which presents the preferred method (if available) and publications related to research integrity.

Examples of general research method books:
- Polit, D. F., Flanagan, J., & Beck, C. T. (2025). Polit and Beck's nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (Twelfth edition.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
- Gerrish, K. & Lathlean, J. (2015). Research process in nursing (Seventh edition.). Wiley Blackwell. (e-bok)
- Parahoo, K., 2006. Nursing Research. Principles, Process and Issues. Second Edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Holloway, I. (2017). Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare (4th ed.). Wiley Blackwell. (e-bok)
- Gibbs, G. R. & Flick, U. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Second edition.). Sage.
- Merriam, S. B. & Grenier, R. S. (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (Second edition.). Jossey-Bass.
- Kyngäs, H., Mikkonen, K. & Kääriäinen, M. (2019). The application of content analysis in nursing science research. Springer International Publishing.
- Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Fourth edition. International student edition.). SAGE.
- Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford University Press. (e-bok)
- Hammersley, M. (2013). What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Academic.
- Leavy, P. (2014). The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. Oxford University Press. (e-bok)

Specific research methods:
- Coughlan, M. & Cronin, P. (2017). Doing a literature review in nursing, health and social care (2nd edition.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
- King, N., Horrocks, C. & Brooks, J. (2019). Interviews in qualitative research (2nd edition.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
- Brinkmann, S. (2013). Qualitative interviewing. Oxford University Press.
- Lawson, H. A. (2015). Participatory action research (First edition.). Oxford University Press. (e-bok)
- Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4. [updated] ed.). Sage Publications.

Ethics:
- Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK): https://www.tenk.fi/en
- What are Qualitative Research Ethics? (2012). Bloomsbury Academic. (e-bok)
- Comstock, G. (2013). Research ethics: A philosophical guide to the responsible conduct of research. Cambridge University Press.
- Bos, J., & Bos, J. a. (2020). Research ethics for students in the social sciences (First edition, 2020.). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48415-6

Teaching methods

The course is divided into three separate parts:
1) Academic writing and Research ethics (2 credits)
2) Qualitative methods (5 credits)
3) Quantitative methods (3 credits)

Academic writing and Research ethics, 2 credits, will be offered as an online course in autumn 2025, qualitative methods, 5 credits, will be offered as an online course from autumn 2025 to spring 2026, and quantitative methods, 3 credits, will be offered in 2026.

Exam schedules

ACADEMIC WRITING AND RESEARCH ETHICS
The course in academic writing and research ethics can be completed during the period 1.9.2025 to 31.12.2025. Deadlines per module:
Module 1:
Module 2:

QUALITATIVE METHODS
The course in qualitative methods can be completed during the period 1.11.2025 to 31.5.2026. Deadlines per module:
Module 1:
Module 2:
Module 3:
Module 4:

QUANTITATIVE METHODS
The course in quantitative methods can be taken during 2026.

Student workload

ACADEMIC WRITING AND RESEARCH ETHICS (2 credits= 54 hours)
Modul 1: Course information 1h (introduction to the course)
Modul 2: Individual assignment = 26,5 h
Modul 3: Individual assignment = 26,5 h

QUALITATIVE METHODS (5 credits = 135 hours)
Module 1: Course information 1 hour (introduction to the course structure) + test on Moodle = 5 hours
Module 2: Home exam on Moodle = 25 hours
Module 3: Individual assignment = 55 hours
Module 4: Individual assignment = 50 hours

QUANTITATIVE METHODS (3 credits = 81 hours)

Content scheduling

The course is divided into three parts: (1) academic writing and research ethics, (2) qualitative and (3) quantitative part.

(1) Academic writing and research ethics (2 credits) will be completed during 2025. This part of the course is entirely virtual and available on Moodle.

(2) Qualitative methods (5 credits) will be completed during 2025-2026. This part of the course is entirely virtual and available on Moodle.

(3) Quantitative methods (3 credits) will be completed during the 2026. This part of the course will be realised partly through lectures.

Further information

All written submissions will be checked for plagiarism.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments. The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Assessment methods and criteria

ACADEMIC WRITING AND RESEARCH ETHICS
Module 1 (weighting 50%) and Module 2 (weighting 50%) are assessed according to the scale pass/fail. In order for the student to pass Module 1 and/or Module 2, assignments must be submitted within the set time.

QUALITATIVE METHODS
Module 1 (test) is graded on a pass/fail basis. In order for students to pass the module 1, they must have completed the test.
Modules 2, 3 and 4 are graded on a scale of 0-5.
Module 2 (weighting 20%)
- knowledge of basic research ethics concepts
- ability to highlight issues of ethics, data protection and reliability/credibility in a multifaceted manner based on literature in research methodology
Modules 3 and 4 (weighting 40%)
- ability to plan, structure, conduct and critically evaluate research
- ability to formulate a research question
- ability to search for scientific articles and collect empirical data
- ability to present the analysis process
- ability to present the results of the analysis (written and visual presentation)
- ability to combine theory, practice and reflection
- ability to document and present logically and in a structured manner
- Use of literature
- Use of Novia's writing guidelines

To pass the course, all assignments (Modules 1-4) must be approved. Assignments must be submitted by the deadline. Late submissions may lower the grade.

QUANTITATIVE METHODS

METHOD SEMINARS
The research plan is assessed on a pass/fail basis.

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

QUALITATIVE METHODS
Module 2
Does not explain the key concepts and basic principles.
Is not based on literature.
Modules 3 and 4
The text is fragmentary and does not answer the questions.
Methodological literature is not used.
Reflections are not presented.
The technical design is inadequate.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

QUALITATIVE METHODS
Module 2
Refers to concepts and basic principles.
Based on methodological literature.
Modules 3 and 4
Questions are answered vaguely and narrowly.
Methodological literature is referenced.
Reflections are presented only to a limited extent.
The technical design is satisfactory.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

QUALITATIVE METHODS
Module 2
Understands and can explain concepts and basic principles.
Bases work on methodological literature and the guidelines of the Research Ethics Committee.
Modules 3 and 4
Questions are answered.
Methodological literature is applied.
The text is reflective and includes critical comments.
The technical design is good.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

QUALITATIVE METHODS
Module 2
Ability to see connections and draw own conclusions.
Versatile use of methodological literature and the guidelines of the Research Ethics Committee.
Modules 3 and 4
Questions are answered comprehensively and in a versatile manner.
Methodological literature is analysed and applied.
Reflection is scientifically analytical.
The technical design is commendable.

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- understands and is able to analyse the knowledge development in the social and/or health care area from a scientific theoretical perspective
- is able to evaluate and critically review development and research results in her/his own field
- is able to contribute to a research-based development of her/his own business

Content

Science theory
Critical evaluation and review

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential.
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments.
The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student
- has knowledge of the legislation governing out-of-home care
- is able to engage with, guide, and support children in care and their family members
- has an understanding of ethical issues related to out-of-home care
- understands the importance of maintaining well-being at work

Content

The care placement process and quality recommendations
Trauma-informed approach and establishing trusting relationships
The importance of daily routines and structure
Collaboration with parents and family-centered interventions
Multiprofessional collaboration
Restrictive measures
Running away from care placements
Ethical dilemmas and the sense of powerlessness among professionals
Personal resilience and coping strategies for child protection workers
Documentation

Evaluation scale

H-5

Qualifications

None

Objective

The student:
Can carry out work-life-related development work in the area of ​​social or health care in accordance with scientific requirements and ethical principles
Can collaborate on a development work together with the representatives of the working life
Develops a resource-enhancing and innovative approach in relation to development of operations
Can act as an expert in her/his own professional field and actively participate in the results of their development work in a professional context

Content

Thesis work plan
Master´s thesis presentation
Maturity test

Teaching methods

Seminars on Teams

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

The introduction is short, bland and does not lead the reader on the subject. The purpose is unclear / not entirely relevant and the question positions do not relate to the purpose / or become incorrect. The motivation for the subject choice is weak. The introduction gives a partially misleading / unclear picture of the subject. The purpose is unclear described and the logical connection of the questions to the purpose is weak. Motivation of the subject choice unclear.
The theoretical background and the starting point are based on preferably few sources and are very general and / or briefly described. An nonindependent referencing method is used. A certain source criticism can be perceived The theoretical background and the starting point is based on relevant literature but remains very general and / or briefly described. The sources are few and constitute a weak theoretical framework for the work. Source criticism is inadequate
The method selection description, method discussion and ethical discussion are rudimentary and incomplete. The outcome and method discussion, including a critical examination of the study, is not relevant with regard to the work. The conclusions are undeveloped and trivial. Parts of the method description, the method discussion and / or the ethical discussion are deficient. The result, method discussion / critical review are very superficial. The conclusions are trivial.
The result discussion is mainly referring, and is incomplete with regard to what is relevant for the purpose of the work. The presentation's logical rigor is weak. The feedback to the purpose is extremely weak in the conclusion, and a summary model / discussion is made The discussion of results is mainly referring to and some aspects that are central to the purpose of the work are treated incompletely or not at all. The presentation is, to some extent, not stringent. The feedback to the purpose is weak in the conclusion.
The summary of the work is inadequate. There are errors in the list of references and references. The presentation is weak and disjointed, the opposition shows the inability to critically review a text. Partially immature, troubled and indecent working method. The summary of the study / study partially flawed. There are some inaccuracies in the list of references and references. The presentation is relatively unsystematic, the opposition is purely referring. The work process has been characterized by some problems and an nonindependent working method.

Assessment criteria, good (3)

The introduction gives a sufficiently good picture for the reader to understand the theme and purpose of the study. The purpose and issues are logically linked to each other. The motivation for the subject selection is clearly described. The introduction gives a clear background picture of how the work relates to previous research and thus to the purpose. The purpose and issues are logically linked to each other. The motivation of choice of topic is interesting
There is a fundamental ability to synthesize and the theory forms a relevant background. The literature is relevant with regard to the theme and the theoretical starting point is appropriate. A good source criticism. The study is based on a good theoretical whole based on extensive and relevant literature, as well as a clear and adequate theoretical starting point. A good source of criticism.
The method description gives a comprehensive picture of the study's implementation, but without in-depth discussion of different method choices. The study has an extent corresponding to a Master´s thesis and is well implemented. The ethical discussion is concise but presents the relevant ethical issues. The critical review is extensive but not reflective. The conclusions are reasonable and relate to the purpose, but do not show any ability to reflect on this. The method description gives a comprehensive picture of the study's implementation and shows awareness of the advantages and disadvantages of the choice of method. The scope of the study is sufficient with regard to materials to correspond to thesis at master level. The ethical discussion is extensive and exhaustive in relation to relevant ethical issues. The conclusions are comprehensive and well-founded.
The results report is systematic but preferably referencing. The feedback to the purpose of the conclusion is clear, but brief and a clear reflection is lacking. The results report is correct, systematic and shows the ability for an independent reasoning. The feedback to the purpose of the conclusion is clear and comprehensive and demonstrates strengths and weaknesses in the implementation.
Good summary of the survey. Layout, source list and references follow standard. Presentation and exposure follow the instructions The work process has been smooth and largely independent. Very good summary of the survey Source list and references follow standard. The presentation is systematic and the writer shows the ability to develop and clarify his theme. The opposition is critical and constructive and shows a good ability to familiarize themselves with the theme of the opposed work. The work process is mature and largely independent

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The introduction is able to discuss previous research and knowledge on the subject and therefore sets the purpose in a scientifically interesting context. The purpose and the issues are logically linked to each other and it is a clear link to the purpose throughout the work.
The theoretical background and starting point are well-founded and well-written. A reflected approach to the theme can be seen in the work. The source usage is extensive and relevant, as well as showing a remarkable ability to source criticism.
The method description gives a comprehensive picture of the study's implementation and shows awareness of the advantages and disadvantages of the choice of method, and shows the ability to consider different options. The ethical discussion is extensive and exhaustive in relation to relevant ethical issues. The conclusions are comprehensive and well-founded; The writer is also able to critically evaluate these and show new perspectives and questions for further research.
The results report is well-structured, innovative and shows the ability for an independent reasoning. The feedback to the purpose of the conclusion is clear and comprehensive. Strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of the study / study are discussed. The work concludes with an interesting conclusion, well-founded synthesis and description of development opportunities.
Excellent summary of the survey. The source list and references follow the standard. The presentation is systematic and the writer shows the ability to develop and clarify her/his theme. The opposition is critical and constructive, and also shows a good ability to discuss and critically reflect. The work process is smooth, mature and independent. The work has that little extra that gives light power.

Qualifications

Research and Development 15 ECTS credits

Objective

The student:
- Knows data which can be utilized social welfare and healthcare.
- Knows especially data of national, regional and organizations in clinical laboratory activity.
- Is able to evaluate quality, reliability and usability of data.
- Is able to utilize data in development of biomedical laboratory science considering directing legislature, ethical principles and data management directions.

Content

Different social welfare and healthcare data, register-based studies, phases of data management., ethics and development of biomedical laboratory science by data.

Location and time

Fall 2025
Online implemented through the cooperation network BioRad

Materials

According to the lecturer's instructions
Given at course introduction

Teaching methods

Introduction to the course, self studies, individual assignment.

Exam schedules

Seminar with presentation of the students assignments

Student workload

The course is 5 cr which corresponds to 135 hours of work

Further information

The course is realized through the BioRad cooperation and responsible Universities of Applied Science are Turku University of Applied Science, Metropolia University of Applied Science and Tampereen University of Applied Science. Course material is found on Moodle of Metropolia.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Student recognizes directing legislature, ethical principles and data management directions in development of clinical laboratory activity. Student evaluates quality, reliability and usability of used data.

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Student develops clinical laboratory activity by utilize data considering directing legislature, ethical principles and data management directions. Student evaluates quality, reliability and usability of used data.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Student develops clinical laboratory activity by utilize data considering directing legislature, ethical principles and data management directions. Student evaluates quality, reliability and usability of used data critically.

Assessment methods and criteria

The course is graded 0-5. A passed grade requires passed individual assignments and active participation in seminars.

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

Bedömningskriterier finns på den gemensamma Moodle plattformen

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

Student:
- is able to explain and apply legislation regarding social and health care
- understands the economics of social and health care as part of the social economy and the organisation's activities
- is able to describes and apply the basics of ​​budgeting and budget follow-up
- is able to explain the relationship between business and budget
- is able to evaluate and argue competition in public and private social and health care

Content

Social and health care legislation
Social and health care economics
Budgeting
Competition law

Location and time

Autumn 2025
Online 100% via Teams

24.10 lecture
10.12 seminar

Materials

Lecture material, scientific articles and other distributed material on Moodle.

Teaching methods

Lectures, self-studies and assignments

Student workload

The course covers 5 ECTS credits, totalling 135 hours of student work.
Lectures 3 h
Seminars 4 h
Selfstudies 128 h

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment: The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments. The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)

Assessment methods and criteria

In Moodle.

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

The text is fragmentary and it does not answer the questions.
The methodological literature is not used.
Reflections are not performed.
The technical design is lacking.
Does not explain the central concepts and basic principles.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

The questions are answered vaguely and narrowly.
The literature is referenced.
Reflections are performed only to a limited extent.
The technical design is satisfactory.
Refers concepts and basic principle.
Students have justifiable knowledge of quality management and improvement work and how these should be applied, as well as a deficient understanding of basic relevant concepts.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

The questions are answered.
The methodological literature is applied.
The text is reflective and there are critical points of view.
The technical design is good.
Understands and can explain concepts and the basic principles are based on literature.
Students have good knowledge of quality management and improvement work and how these should be applied.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The questions are answered exhaustively and in many ways.
The literature is analyzed and applied.
The reflection is scientifically analytical.
The technical design is commendable.
Has the ability to see connections and draw own conclusions.
Makes versatile use of literature.
Students have excellent knowledge of quality management and improvement work and how these should be applied, as well as a good understanding of basic relevant concepts and can use these independently and critically.

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- is able to handle patients/clients' health and disease conditions, through adequate medical history, status assessment and treatment
- is able to perform structured health history and critically analyse and evaluate the same
- is able to perform a structured examination of the patient/client and critically analyse and evaluate her/his own intervention
- is able to apply the key skills required for diagnostics and clinical decisions
- is able to apply decision models to make differential diagnoses and then provide subsequent evidence-based care and critically analyse and evaluate the same
- is able to take responsibility for the patient's/client's health and illness conditions
- is able to teach and supervise patients/clients

Content

Physical assessment

Location and time

Attendance days' courses and times are available on Moodle

Materials

For the subjects critical thinking and clinical judgment please attach the following reading materials:
Clinical judgment- an essential tool in the nursing process
http://www.infiressources.ca/fer/Depotdocument_anglais/Clinical_Judgement%E2%80%93An_Essential_Tool_in_the_Nursing_Profession.pdf
What critical thinking, critical reasoning, and clinical judgment are?
https://www.elsevier.com/books/critical-thinking-clinical-reasoning-and-clinical-judgment/alfaro-lefevre/978-0-323-35890-3
Clinical reasoning instructor resourceshttp://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=113&sid=1d415f7a-433b-4674-a0a0-d28e4ee49a53%40sessionmgr115
For the subject of critical thinking and EBP please find the following material
Kitson, AL., Athlin, ÅM., Conroy, T Anything but Basic: Nursing’s Challenge in Meeting Patients’Fundamental Care Needs. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 46(5), 2012. Pp 331-339
Long, B.C& Phipps, W.J. & Cassmever, V. L. (1995). Adult Nursing A Nursing Process Approach, London U.K pp: 4-13
Lunney, M. Use of Critical Thinking in the Diagnostic Process. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classification.21 (2), 2010.pp82-88.
Lynda, F., Snyder, CH.. Evidence-based practice for the busy nurse practitioner: Par three: Critical appraisal process. Journal of the Academy of Nurse Practitioner. 24, 2012. Pp704-715
Robert, RR. Petersen S. Critical Thinking at the Bedside: Providing Safe Passage to Patients. MEDSURG Nursing.22 (2), 2013.pp 85-118.
Smith, SA Nurse Competence: A Concept Analysis. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge. 23(3), 2012 pp. 172-182.
Herdman, TH., ed NANDA International Nursing Diagnosis> Definitions & Classification 2012-2014. 2012 Wiley-Blackwell (this book can be found in Swedish)
For the subject of history thanking physical assessment
Hogan-Quigley, B., Palm, ML., Bickley, LS. Nursing Guide to Physical Examination and History Taking. 2012. Philadelphia, 11th ed. Wolther Kluwer Health Lippincott
Timby, B. K. (2013). Fundamental Nursing Skills and Concept. 10th ed. Wolter Kluwer Health. Lippincott.
Fagerstrom, L.M.( 2019), (red) Avanserat Klinisk Sykepleie. Oslo. Gylendal.

Teaching methods

Clinical examination, decision making and implementation of nursing care

Exam schedules

OSCE våren 2025

Student workload

1 sp = 27 hours

Further information

Each student is assessed on the basis of two clinical patient cases (case / station) at a time.
Time is limited to 30 minutes per student per station.
Students have 25 minutes to complete the three sections below.
Then the observer / examiner has 5 minutes to discuss the performance.
Students receive a brief description of the patient, as well as the instructions below.
• This is your first time meeting the patient.
• You have 25 minutes to go. Keep track of time! The observer then announces that it is 2 minutes left.
When the time is up, you must finish even if all parts are not completed.
• Information is provided by the "patient" or the observer during the examination, if asked / asked.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, approved/failed

The student:
Can receive feedback and shows willingness to develop professional skills
Can ask questions that are relevant for learning
Works in a planned manner and has accuracy at important work moments
Can perform tasks under supervision
Has advanced knowledge and can ask questions that are relevant to learning
Can follow directives and instructions and take responsibility for tasks
Can make decisions concerning tasks at advanced level
Knows the values ​​and consider the ethical principles
Can communicate and respond to patients/clients/customers
Can cooperate with others in the team

Assessment methods and criteria

Objective structured clinical examination (OSCE)
The OSCE Examination Form was developed in England in the late 1970s, and is used today in medicine and health education in several countries. OSCE assesses the student's clinical competence (knowledge and skills), problem-solving ability and interactivity. The arrangement means that there are different stations with patient cases (case)

Students are assessed on the basis of an assessment form (checklist of criteria), the content of which varies depending on the patient case.
All criteria are evaluated as follows:
• 0 = Fail (asks/acts not)
• 1 = Sufficiently approved (asks/acts but not correct / direct according to directive)
• 2 = Competent (asks/acts correctly)

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

< 49%

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

50-69%

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

70-89%

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

> 90%

Qualifications

SHV14AK02 Anatomy and pathophysiology

Objective

The student:
- is able to create and articulate a personal and authentic leadership approach that culminates in a mission statement about continued learning is a key component
- is able to create a vision and develop behaviors to successfully lead a diverse group of people through uncertain environments
- is able to present a variety of interventions to enhance an innovative, sustainable and inclusive work environment by demonstrating cultural sensitivity and advanced communication skills

Content

Personal leadership
Value-based leadership
Communication
Team leadership
Power
Organisational culture

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the written exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and his/hers knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential. The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for assignment. She/he have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the written exam
The student can explain the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has mastered the substance of his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the written exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the possible seminar. The assignment and the possible role as an opponent show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the possible seminar

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

Student:
- is able to analyse social and health care organisations and consider social development
- is able to explain and investigate the main principles of organisational activities and leadership
- is able to analyse and interpret the organisation from a stakeholder perspective
- is able to critically examine the relationship between ethics, values ​​and leadership at different levels in the organisation
- is able to apply and analyse current, interdisciplinary research within the leadership area

Content

Organisational theories and their development related to social development
Modern organisational theories in today's social and health care
Strategic management and strategic thinking in the organisation
Creative organisations
LEAN
Organisational culture
Ethics and values ​​in organisations
Current interdisciplinary research in the field

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential.
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments. The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- is able to create and articulate a personal and authentic leadership approach that culminates in a mission statement about continued learning is a key component
- is able to create a vision and develop behaviors to successfully lead a diverse group of people through uncertain environments
- is able to present a variety of interventions to enhance an innovative, sustainable and inclusive work environment by demonstrating cultural sensitivity and advanced communication skills

Content

Personal leadership
Value-based leadership
Communication
Team leadership
Power
Organisational culture

Location and time

Online (Teams)

9.9.2025, 15-17, Healthcare Leadership, Lotta Eronen
30.9.2025, Healthcare Leadership, Lotta Eronen
14.10, 15-17, Healthcare Leadership, Lotta Eronen
4.11.2025, 15-17, Healthcare Leadership, Lotta Eronen
18.11.2025, 15-17, Healthcare Leadership, Lotta Eronen
9.12.2025, 15-18, Healthcare Leadership, Lotta Eronen

Materials

Exam book:

In English: Reframing Organizations - 2021 or 2024
Lee G. Bolman, Terrence E. Deal

In Swedish: Nya perspektiv på organisation och ledarkap
av Lee G Bolman, Terrence E Deal
(Upplaga 6 eller 7)

More to be introduced during the introductory lecture.

Teaching methods

Online lectures and seminars.
Self studies: Literature, written exam and assignments (essays, reports, productions and portfolio)

Exam schedules

To be introduced during the introductory lecture.

Completion alternatives

To be introduced during the introductory lecture.

Student workload

10 ECTS credits equals a total of approximately 270 hours of work.
1 ECTS credit = 27 hours work.

Further information

The course is conducted in collaboration with Arcada.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the written exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and his/hers knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential. The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for assignment. She/he have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the written exam
The student can explain the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has mastered the substance of his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the written exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the possible seminar. The assignment and the possible role as an opponent show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the possible seminar

Assessment methods and criteria

To be introduced during the introductory lecture.

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

Student:
- is able to analyse social and health care organisations and consider social development
- is able to explain and investigate the main principles of organisational activities and leadership
- is able to analyse and interpret the organisation from a stakeholder perspective
- is able to critically examine the relationship between ethics, values ​​and leadership at different levels in the organisation
- is able to apply and analyse current, interdisciplinary research within the leadership area

Content

Organisational theories and their development related to social development
Modern organisational theories in today's social and health care
Strategic management and strategic thinking in the organisation
Creative organisations
LEAN
Organisational culture
Ethics and values ​​in organisations
Current interdisciplinary research in the field

Location and time

Autumn 2025
Online course in Teams
Lectures 4.9, 22.9
Compulsory seminar 21.10

Materials

Material on Moodle.

Exam schedules

Information in Moodle

Student workload

In total 5 ECTS, 135 hours
Lectures 9h
Selfstudies 126 h

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential.
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments. The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Assessment methods and criteria

The basis for the course's examination consists of:
- A written individual submission, graded according to 0-5
- A group work, graded 0-5

Feedback on the tasks is obtained through assessment criteria, more detailed justification is obtained when contacting the course's teacher.

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

The text is fragmentary and it does not answer the questions.
The methodological literature is not used.
Reflections are not performed.
The technical design is lacking.
Does not explain the central concepts and basic principles.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

The questions are answered vaguely and narrowly.
The literature is referenced
Reflections are performed only to a limited extent.
The technical design is satisfactory.
Refers concepts and basic principle
Students have justifiable knowledge of quality management and improvement work and how these should be applied, as well as a deficient understanding of basic relevant concepts.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

The questions are answered.
The methodological literature is applied.
The text is reflective and there are critical points of view.
The technical design is good
Understands and can explain concepts and the basic principles are based on literature. Students have good knowledge of quality management and improvement work and how these should be applied,

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The questions are answered exhaustively and in many ways.
The literature is analyzed and applied.
The reflection is scientifically analytical.
The technical design is commendable.
Has the ability to see connections and draw own conclusions
Makes versatile use of literature
Students have excellent knowledge of quality management and improvement work and how these should be applied, as well as a good understanding of basic relevant concepts and can use these independently and critically

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- understands and is able to use qualitative and quantitative research and development processes and methods
- is able to apply a scientific and ethical approach in research and development activities
- is able to carry out a current work life-related development project

Content

Qualitative research methods
Quantitative research methods
Academic writing
Research ethics

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments. The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student
- is able to develop a professional paradigm as an advanced clinical nurse
- is able to critically analyse and evaluate advanced communication skills with patients/clients and employees
- is able to apply models for the reflection that shows complex overall needs of patients, family and environment in order to be able to practice the ability for critical analysis and evaluation

Content

Advanced clinical nursing care
Critical thinking

Location and time

spring 2024

Materials

Boman, E., Levy, M. R., & Fagerström, L. (2020). Differences and similarities in scope of practice between registered nurses and nurse specialists in emergency care: an interview study. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 34(2), 492–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12753
Boman, E., Glasberg, A.-L., Levy-Malmberg, R., & Fagerström, L. (2019). “Thinking outside the box”: advanced geriatric nursing in primary health care in Scandinavia. BMC Nursing, 18(1), N.PAG. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-019-0350-2
Boman, E., Levy, M. R., & Fagerström, L. (2019). Nurses’ understanding of becoming nurse practitioner role in the Norwegian emergency care context: A qualitative study. Nordic Journal of Nursing research. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057158518783166
Bryant-Lukosius, D., & DiCenso, A. (2004). A framework for the introduction and evaluation of advanced practice nursing roles. Journal of Advanced Nursing (Wiley-Blackwell), 48(5), 530–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03235.x
Kerr, L., & Macaskill, A. (2020). The journey from nurse to advanced nurse practitioner: applying concepts of role transitioning. British Journal of Nursing, 29(10), 561–565. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2020.29.10.561
Mackey, H., Noonan, K., Kennedy Sheldon, L., Singer, M., & Turner, T. (2018). Oncology Nurse Practitioner Role: Recommendations from the Oncology Nursing Society’s Nurse Practitioner Summit. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 22(5), 516–522. https://doi.org/10.1188/18.CJON.516-522

Teaching methods

Lectures, group discussion

Exam schedules

See Moodle

Completion alternatives

The written assignment instruction will be given during the lecture

Student workload

1ECTS=27H

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments
The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Assessment methods and criteria

0-5

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

The student did not achieve any of the criteria of academic writing and presentation of his/work

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject, points, conduct frail interview, and weak analysis of the results

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

The student has a good knowledge of the subject, conduct respectable and valuable interview, the analysis and the results presentation gave good knowledge about the topic

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The student shows an in-depth knowledge, the process of collecting the data and the results presentation enhance the knowledge and understanding

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- understands and is able to use qualitative and quantitative research and development processes and methods
- is able to apply a scientific and ethical approach in research and development activities
- is able to carry out a current work life-related development project

Content

Qualitative research methods
Quantitative research methods
Academic writing
Research ethics

Location and time

Part 1. Academic writing and Research ethics, conducted entirely online. The course is available on Moodle 11.11.2025-31.12.2025. Course introduction (1h) (11.11.2025) and one remote (25.11.2025) guidance (1h ) during the course.

Part 2. Qualitative methods, conducted entirely online. The course is available on Moodle 1.1.2026-31.5.2026. Course introduction (1h) and four remote guidance (1h each) during the course.

Part 3. Quantitative methods, conducted entirely online. The course is available on Moodle in Autumn semester 2026.

Materials

Course literature (suggestions below): student chooses a book which presents the preferred method (if available) and publications related to research integrity.

Examples of general research method books:
- Polit, D. F., Flanagan, J., & Beck, C. T. (2025). Polit and Beck's nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (Twelfth edition.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
- Gerrish, K. & Lathlean, J. (2015). Research process in nursing (Seventh edition.). Wiley Blackwell. (e-bok)
- Parahoo, K., 2006. Nursing Research. Principles, Process and Issues. Second Edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Holloway, I. (2017). Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare (4th ed.). Wiley Blackwell. (e-bok)
- Gibbs, G. R. & Flick, U. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Second edition.). Sage.
- Merriam, S. B. & Grenier, R. S. (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (Second edition.). Jossey-Bass.
- Kyngäs, H., Mikkonen, K. & Kääriäinen, M. (2019). The application of content analysis in nursing science research. Springer International Publishing.
- Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Fourth edition. International student edition.). SAGE.
- Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford University Press. (e-bok)
- Hammersley, M. (2013). What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Academic.
- Leavy, P. (2014). The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. Oxford University Press. (e-bok)

Specific research methods:
- Coughlan, M. & Cronin, P. (2017). Doing a literature review in nursing, health and social care (2nd edition.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
- King, N., Horrocks, C. & Brooks, J. (2019). Interviews in qualitative research (2nd edition.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
- Brinkmann, S. (2013). Qualitative interviewing. Oxford University Press.
- Lawson, H. A. (2015). Participatory action research (First edition.). Oxford University Press. (e-bok)
- Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4. [updated] ed.). Sage Publications.

Ethics:
- Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK): https://www.tenk.fi/en
- What are Qualitative Research Ethics? (2012). Bloomsbury Academic. (e-bok)
- Comstock, G. (2013). Research ethics: A philosophical guide to the responsible conduct of research. Cambridge University Press.
- Bos, J., & Bos, J. a. (2020). Research ethics for students in the social sciences (First edition, 2020.). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48415-6

Teaching methods

The course is divided into three separate parts:
1) Academic writing and Research ethics (2 credits)
2) Qualitative methods (5 credits)
3) Quantitative methods (3 credits)

Academic writing and Research ethics, 2 credits, will be offered as an online course in autumn 2025, qualitative methods, 5 credits, will be offered as an online course from autumn 2025 to spring 2026, and quantitative methods, 3 credits, will be offered in 2026.

Exam schedules

ACADEMIC WRITING AND RESEARCH ETHICS
The course in academic writing and research ethics can be completed during the period 1.9.2025 to 31.12.2025. Deadlines per module:
Module 1:
Module 2:

QUALITATIVE METHODS
The course in qualitative methods can be completed during the period 1.11.2025 to 31.5.2026. Deadlines per module:
Module 1:
Module 2:
Module 3:
Module 4:

QUANTITATIVE METHODS
The course in quantitative methods can be taken during 2026.

Student workload

ACADEMIC WRITING AND RESEARCH ETHICS (2 credits= 54 hours)
Modul 1: Course information 1h (introduction to the course)
Modul 2: Individual assignment = 26,5 h
Modul 3: Individual assignment = 26,5 h

QUALITATIVE METHODS (5 credits = 135 hours)
Module 1: Course information 1 hour (introduction to the course structure) + test on Moodle = 5 hours
Module 2: Home exam on Moodle = 25 hours
Module 3: Individual assignment = 55 hours
Module 4: Individual assignment = 50 hours

QUANTITATIVE METHODS (3 credits = 81 hours)

Content scheduling

The course is divided into three parts: (1) academic writing and research ethics, (2) qualitative and (3) quantitative part.

(1) Academic writing and research ethics (2 credits) will be completed during 2025. This part of the course is entirely virtual and available on Moodle.

(2) Qualitative methods (5 credits) will be completed during 2025-2026. This part of the course is entirely virtual and available on Moodle.

(3) Quantitative methods (3 credits) will be completed during the 2026. This part of the course will be realised partly through lectures.

Further information

All written submissions will be checked for plagiarism.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments. The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Assessment methods and criteria

ACADEMIC WRITING AND RESEARCH ETHICS
Module 1 (weighting 50%) and Module 2 (weighting 50%) are assessed according to the scale pass/fail. In order for the student to pass Module 1 and/or Module 2, assignments must be submitted within the set time.

QUALITATIVE METHODS
Module 1 (test) is graded on a pass/fail basis. In order for students to pass the module 1, they must have completed the test.
Modules 2, 3 and 4 are graded on a scale of 0-5.
Module 2 (weighting 20%)
- knowledge of basic research ethics concepts
- ability to highlight issues of ethics, data protection and reliability/credibility in a multifaceted manner based on literature in research methodology
Modules 3 and 4 (weighting 40%)
- ability to plan, structure, conduct and critically evaluate research
- ability to formulate a research question
- ability to search for scientific articles and collect empirical data
- ability to present the analysis process
- ability to present the results of the analysis (written and visual presentation)
- ability to combine theory, practice and reflection
- ability to document and present logically and in a structured manner
- Use of literature
- Use of Novia's writing guidelines

To pass the course, all assignments (Modules 1-4) must be approved. Assignments must be submitted by the deadline. Late submissions may lower the grade.

QUANTITATIVE METHODS

METHOD SEMINARS
The research plan is assessed on a pass/fail basis.

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

QUALITATIVE METHODS
Module 2
Does not explain the key concepts and basic principles.
Is not based on literature.
Modules 3 and 4
The text is fragmentary and does not answer the questions.
Methodological literature is not used.
Reflections are not presented.
The technical design is inadequate.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

QUALITATIVE METHODS
Module 2
Refers to concepts and basic principles.
Based on methodological literature.
Modules 3 and 4
Questions are answered vaguely and narrowly.
Methodological literature is referenced.
Reflections are presented only to a limited extent.
The technical design is satisfactory.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

QUALITATIVE METHODS
Module 2
Understands and can explain concepts and basic principles.
Bases work on methodological literature and the guidelines of the Research Ethics Committee.
Modules 3 and 4
Questions are answered.
Methodological literature is applied.
The text is reflective and includes critical comments.
The technical design is good.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

QUALITATIVE METHODS
Module 2
Ability to see connections and draw own conclusions.
Versatile use of methodological literature and the guidelines of the Research Ethics Committee.
Modules 3 and 4
Questions are answered comprehensively and in a versatile manner.
Methodological literature is analysed and applied.
Reflection is scientifically analytical.
The technical design is commendable.

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- understands and is able to analyse the knowledge development in the social and/or health care area from a scientific theoretical perspective
- is able to evaluate and critically review development and research results in her/his own field
- is able to contribute to a research-based development of her/his own business

Content

Science theory
Critical evaluation and review

Location and time

The course is available on Moodle 21.10.2025-31.12.2025.
Course introduction 21.10.2025 (15:00 - 16:00) / Teams

Materials

THEORY OF SCIENCE:
- Polit, D. F., Flanagan, J., & Beck, C. T. (2025). Polit and Beck's nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (Twelfth edition.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
- Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Sixth edition. International student edition.). SAGE.

INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT:
- Streiner, D. L. a., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (Fifth edition.). Oxford University Press.

IMPLEMENTATION:
- Braden, C. J., & Braden, C. J. (2021). Nursing and health intervention: Design, evaluation and implementation (2nd ed.). Wiley Blackwell.

Teaching methods

Self-study
Lectures
Group work

Exam schedules

Module 1: Theory of Science and Instrument Development
- Instrument development (group assignment), deadline: XX.XX.2025

Module 2: Evidence-based practice and implementation
- Critical appraisal of a scientific article (individual assignment): XX.XX.2025
- Implementation plan (individual assignment): 31.12.2025

Student workload

5 ECTS = 135h

Lectures: 10h
Self-study: 70h
Group work: 51h
Seminar: 4h

Content scheduling

Module 1: Theory of science and instrument development
Module 2: Evidence-based practice and implementation

Further information

All written submissions are plagiarism checked.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential.
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments.
The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Assessment methods and criteria

Modules 1-2 are assessed on a 0-5 scale. Assessment is based on:
- Ability to analyse
- Ability to summarise relevant data
- Critical reflection
- Use of literature
- Use of Novia's writing instructions

To pass the course, all assignments (Modules 1-2) should be approved. Assignments must be submitted on time. Late submissions may lower the grade. Written feedback cannot be guaranteed for late submissions.

Module 1: 50 % of the grade
- Instrument development: 1-5

Module 2: 50 % of the grade
- Critical appraisal of a scientific article: pass/fail
- Implementation plan: 1-5

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

Modules 1 and 2:
- Literature is not referenced
- Reflections are not provided
- The technical design is lacking
- The overall picture and context are missing
- The assignment does not contain all required elements
- The criteria for grade 1 are not met
- The text is fragmentary and does not answer the questions

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

Modules 1 and 2:
- The literature is referenced
- Reflections are made only to a limited extent
- The technical design is satisfactory
- The overall picture and context are satisfactory
- The task does not contain all required elements

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

Modules 1 and 2:
- The literature is applied
- The text is reflective and critical
- The technical design is good
- The overall picture and coherence are good
- The assignment contains all required elements

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Module 1 and 2:
- The literature is analysed and applied
- The reflection is scientifically analytical
- The technical design is commendable
- The overall picture and context are commendable
- The assignment contains all required elements

Qualifications

No prerequisites