Study Guide

Objective

The student:
- is familiar with the principles of person-centred care in the encounter with people with memory disorders
- can apply communication skills for creating and maintaining meaningful relationships with people with memory disorders.
- can make use of activities and interventions to promote well-being and activate people with memory disorder
- have developed awareness of cultural differences and how they can affect care and interaction.
- can reflect on their own cultural awareness

Content

- the most common memory disorders
- basic principles of person-centered care
- customized communication
- identification and assessment of mental health needs
- customized activities and inventions that promote well-being
- cultural competence and development

Evaluation scale

H-5

Objective

The student:
- is familiar with the principles of person-centred care in the encounter with people with memory disorders
- can apply communication skills for creating and maintaining meaningful relationships with people with memory disorders.
- can make use of activities and interventions to promote well-being and activate people with memory disorder
- have developed awareness of cultural differences and how they can affect care and interaction.
- can reflect on their own cultural awareness

Content

- the most common memory disorders
- basic principles of person-centered care
- customized communication
- identification and assessment of mental health needs
- customized activities and inventions that promote well-being
- cultural competence and development

Evaluation scale

H-5

Objective

The student:
- is able to handle patient/client health and disease conditions, through adequate medical history, status assessment and treatment
- is able to teach and guide patients/clients
- is able to create and maintain effective relationships with patients/clients and colleagues
- is able to clarify the professional role of the advanced clinical nurse

Content

Advanced clinical nursing care

Location and time

Autumn 25

Materials

Alotaibi T, Al Anizi CA. The impact of advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) role on adult patients with cancer: A quantitative systematic review. Appl Nurs Res. 2020 Dec;56:151370. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2020.151370.
Buckley L, Robertson S, Wilson T, Sharpless J, Bolton S. The Role of the Specialist Nurse in Gynaecological Cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2018 Sep 11;20(10):83. doi: 10.1007/s11912-018-0734-6.
Craswell A, Dwyer T. Reasons for choosing or refusing care from a nurse practitioner: Results from a national population-based survey. J Adv Nurs. 2019 Dec;75(12):3668-3676. doi: 10.1111/jan.14176.
Heale R, Rietze L, Hill L, Roles S. Development of Nurse Practitioner Competencies for Advance Care Planning. J Hosp Palliat Nurs. 2018 Apr;20(2):166-171. doi: 10.1097/NJH.0000000000000425.
Jackson A, Carberry M. The advance nurse practitioner in critical care: a workload evaluation. Nurs Crit Care. 2015 Mar;20(2):71-7. doi: 10.1111/nicc.12133.
Townsend K, Johnson KS, Jones S, Spurlock A. Nurse Practitioner's Confidence and Competence of Advance Directives: The Benefits of an Educational Program. Hosp Top. 2023 May 2:1-7. doi: 10.1080/00185868.2023.2201693. Epub ahead of print.
You are allowed to find other articles but don’t forget to add the list of articles you have used in the end of your work.

Teaching methods

Lecture and seminar

Exam schedules

see Moodle

Completion alternatives

Seminar is obligatory

Student workload

1 ECTS=27 hours

Further information

instruction for the task and the aims will be given in the first lecture

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

0-5

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

The student did not achieve any of the criteria points, in the task requirement ( see in Moodle)

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

SHV18AK01, The professional paradigm of a Nurse practioner
SHV14AK02, Anatomy and pathophysiology
SHV14AK03, Clinical assessment and nursing care
SHV14AK04, Clinical Pharmacology

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 apply her/his knowledge in anatomy and pathophysiology, and to connect the knowledge to clinical context

Content

Anatomy
Pathofysiology

Location and time

Autumn 2024 according to schedule

Materials

Material on Moodle.
A fundamental book in Human Physiology and Anatomy, for example one of these books:
1) Aldskogius H. and Rydqvist B. (2018) Den friska människan, Anatomi och fysiologi. Liber, Stockholm
2) Nicolaysen G. and Holck P. (2014) Anatomi och fysiologi. Studentlitteratur, Lund
3) Sand, Sjaastad, Haug and Bjålie (2007). Människokroppen. Liber, Stockholm
4) Henriksson O. and Rasmusson M. (2018) Fysiologi : med relevant anatomi. Studentlitteratur, Lund
5) Tortora, G. and Derrickson B. Principles of Anatomy and Physiology, 15:de upplagan (2017 eller äldre upplagor), Wiley.
Book in Patophysiology:
Braun C. and Anderson C. (2012) Patofysiologi : om hur förändringar i kroppens funktioner påverkar vår hälsa. Studentlitteratur, Lund.

Teaching methods

Lectures, self-studies and written assignments

Exam schedules

Written assignments Autumn 2024, and on-line quizzes (exams)

Completion alternatives

Examination

Student workload

The course is 5 cr which corresponds to 135 hours of work
Lectures 12 h
Self-studies, tasks and online exams 123 h

Further information

More information on the Moodle page of the course

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 written assignments and quizzes will be graded and based on these the course will be graded between 0-5

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

The student has pore knowledge of fundamental Anatomy, Physiology and Patophysiology.
The student has not handed in all assignments.
The student did not get a passed grade in the obligatory online quizzes

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

The student has basic knowledge of fundamental Anatomy, Physiology and Patophysiology.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

The student has good knowledge of fundamental Anatomy, Physiology and Patophysiology.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The student has excellent knowledge of fundamental Anatomy, Physiology and Patophysiology.

Qualifications

The student:
Has knowledge of the various tissue types and the structure of the musculosceletal system, as well as of the anatomy and physiology of the various organ systems.
Has knowledge of and understands how blood, skin, circulation, lymph circulation, respiration, digestion and urinary excretion work
Has knowledge of and understands how the endocrine system regulates metabolism and organ functions
Has knowledge of and understands the reproduction
Has knowledge of and understand how the nervous system regulates the physiological processes
Have knowledge of and understands the structure and function of the sensory organs
Has basic knowledge of pathophysiology

Objective

The student:
- is able to recognize and analyze the development of leadership studies in modern organizations, with an emphasis on healthcare organizations.
- is able to explain and interpret change actions in workplaces that are both inclusive and empowering for all participants
- is able to identify and describe forces of organizational change and how these can be actively worked with in order to promote innovation and entrepreneurship

Content

Change leadership theories
Strategic leadership
Evaluation Practice

Location and time

Online
7.1.2025, 15-17, Change leadership, Kick-off Meeting
21.1.2025, 15-17, Change Leadership
4.2.2025, 15-17, Change Leadership
11.2.2025, 9-16, Possibilities for future Nordic Health and welfare seminar (Change Leadership) 9-16

Materials

To be introduced during the introductory lecture.

Teaching methods

Lectures - 16 hours
Seminar 9 hours
Small-group work - 20 hours
Individual studies - 90 hours

Student workload

Total workload of the course: 135 hours
Of which autonomous studies: 135 hours
Of which scheduled studies: 25 hours

Further information

The course is arranged in collaboration with ARCADA.
Lectures are given in English, but written assignment(s) can be returned in either English or Swedish.

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

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:
- 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 describe pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic principles, as well as general mechanisms of action for drugs at the molecular and cellular level
- is able to account for and draw conclusions from individual variations, interaction mechanisms and side effects of drug substances
- is able to describe the mechanisms of action at the molecular level, as well as account for effects, use area and side effects for different drug groups
- is able to relate pharmacological mechanisms of action to the treatment of pathological conditions
- is able to evaluate the potential benefit and risk of multiple drug use (polypharmacy)
- is able to identify health problems that are due to drug side effects and interaction
- is able to apply different pedagogical theories when teaching patients who have got prescribed drugs

Content

Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics
Drug interaction and side effects
The action mechanisms of the drugs
Polypharmacy

Location and time

Autumn 2024 according to schedule

Materials

Course literature:
Nordeng H. och Spigset O. et.al. (2020) Farmakologi och läkemedelsanvändning. Studentlitteratur.
Alternative literature:
Ritter J., Flower R., Henderson G., Loke Y.K., MacEwan D. and Rang H. (2018) Rang and Dale´s Pharmacology, 9th edition, Elsevier.
Scientific articles and other distributed material

Teaching methods

Lectures, self-studies and exercises.

Exam schedules

Two out of five credits are examined by a written, individual exam 13.12.2024
Possibility of re-take on general re-take 17.01.2025 and 07.02.2025
Three out of five credits are examined by individual written assignments and quizzes on line.

Completion alternatives

Examination

Student workload

The course is 5 cr which corresponds to 135 hours of work.
Lectures and examination 12 h
Self-studies and online exams 123 h

Further information

More information on Moodle

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

Written examination corresponds to 2 cr, and individual, written assignments and online quizzes corresponds to 3 cr.
A passed grade is required in all exams and tasks.

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

The student has very weak knowledge of basic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.
The student has not submitted their individual assignments.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

The student has satisfactory knowledge of basic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, as well as satisfactory knowledge of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of different groups of drugs.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

The student has good knowledge of basic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, as well as good knowledge of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of different groups of drugs.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The student has excellent knowledge of basic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, as well as excellent knowledge of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of different groups of drugs.

Qualifications

Basic pharmacology and drug treatment

Objective

The student:
- Is able to evaluate and develop clinical laboratory work by using national and international quality guidelines, standards and evidence based knowledge

Content

National quality guidelines
International quality guidelines
Evidence based biomedical laboratory science

Location and time

Autumn 2024
Online implemented through the cooperation network BioRad

Materials

Given at course introduction

Teaching methods

Introduction to the course, expert lectures and self studies.

Exam schedules

Seminar with presentation of the students assignments in December 2024

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 Metropolia, Savonia and TAMK. Course material is found on Moodle of Metropolia.

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

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

Assessment criteria can be seen on the Moodle plat form of the BioRad cooperation

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

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:
- is able to assess and develop patient centred by literature review based on researches

Content

Patient centred and patient safe clinical radiography according to ethical codes, law, guidelines and best practices.
Literature review as a method for get research based evidence and as a tool to develop patient centred and patient safety clinical radiography

Location and time

17.9 at 16.15-17.00
8.10 at 16.15-19.30
10.10 at 16.15-17.45
29.10 at 16.15-17.45
5.11 at 16.15-17.45
12.11 at 16.15-17.45
10.12 at 16.15-18.30

Materials

According to the lecturer's instructions

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)

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

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 (3-4)

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)

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- Is able to critically evaluate and present safety culture in clinical radiography
- Is able to manage it safety culture in clinical radiography
- Is ethical and cost-effective in clinical radiography
- Is able to describe and apply quality management models and theories in clinical radiography
- Is able to describe and apply concepts and principles of safety culture in clinical radiography
- Is s able to use the most general evaluation methods in clinical radiography

Content

Safety culture in clinical radiography
Ethics and cost-effectiveness in clinical radiography
Quality management models in clinical radiography
Evaluation methods in clinical radiography

Materials

According to the lecturer's instructions

Teaching methods

Virtual studies

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)

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

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 (3-4)

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)

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- is able to develop optimization process of patient dose and image quality in clinical radiography
-is able to describe and apply the principles of justification and optimization of examinations/treatments by their indications, procedures and image quality
- is able to apply international, national and organisation specific best practices
- is able to evaluate and develop factors associated to image quality and patient dose
- is s able to develop expertise in dose optimization

Content

Part a 5 ECTS: Survey of existing situation
Part b 5 ECTS: Developing practices and evaluation of the development

Materials

According to the lecturer's instructions

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)

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

Student:
- Anticipates future challenges in his/her chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies the acquired knowledge in developing laboratory work in interprofessional teams

Content

Elective area of clinical expertise according to the student’s individual study plan

Location and time

Spring 2025 and 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 Metropolia and Oulu University of Applied Science. Course material is found on Moodle of Metropolia.

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 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 describe and apply theory and practice of human resources from an interdisciplinary perspective
- is able to lead and promote diversity in the workplace and has the ability to value and develop an inclusive organisational culture
- in able to organise the business towards a continuous competence development
- is able to work for a sustainable work community development
- is able to apply an ethical approach at work

Content

Working tutorial
Staff management
Labor law
Practical staff administration and collective agreement issues
Human resource-oriented leadership, employee interviews and work motivation.

Location and time

Blended learning.
21.3 kl 9-12
4.4. kl 12.30-15.30
24.4. kl 9-12
22.5 kl 12.30-15.30

Materials

Introduced in the course moodle page

Teaching methods

Lectures, individual studies and group work.
Blended learning

Completion alternatives

Case studies
Self studies
Group Work

Student workload

1c = 27h
5c= 135h

Lectures (9h), Online or at Campus
Individual studies (122h) Individiual studies and group work.
Seminar (4h). Online or at Campus

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

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:
- Anticipates the development of new laboratory methods in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
- Is able to plan, execute and evaluate the implementation, development and maintenance of clinical methods.

Content

Implementation process of new clinical laboratory methods.
Laboratory method verification and validation.
Maintenance of analytics (methods and instruments) in the clinical laboratory.

Location and time

Spring 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 in

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 Metropolia, Savonia, OAMK and Novia. Course material is found on Moodle of Metropolia.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

The student is able to recognize the development of new laboratory methods in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise.
The student can describe the implementation and development of new clinical laboratory methods.

Assessment criteria, good (3)

The student keeps up with the development of new laboratory methods in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
The student is able to plan, implement and develop new clinical laboratory methods.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The student anticipates the development of new laboratory methods in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
The student is able to plan, execute and evaluate the implementation and development of clinical laboratory methods.

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)

Assessment criteria can be seen on the Moodle plat form of the BioRad cooperation

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

29.10.2024 15.00 - 17.00 Teams
05.11.2024 15.00 - 17.00 Teams
12.11.2024 15.00 - 17.00 Teams
19.11.2024 15.00 - 17.00 Teams
26.11.2024 15.00 - 17.00 Teams
10.12.2024 15.00 - 17.00 Teams

Materials

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

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

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

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- Acts as an expert in his/her chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and participates in the multiprofessional competence development of the work community

Content

Preanalytics and customer processes and their development in the chosen area of expertise

Location and time

Spring 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 in

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 Metropolia and Turku University of Applied Science. Course material is found on Moodle of Metropolia.

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 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 define structure, service and outcome quality and meaning of quality assurance from the different perspectives
- is able to identify and apply prevailing quality assessment methods and quality standards within social and health care
- is able to describe the most central quality management systems within social- and health care
- is able to integrate quality assurance and quality improvement to her/his professional duties
- is able to plan and implement evaluation of one’s work field/activity/operation

Content

Perspective on quality management, quality policy, quality system
Quality standards within social and health care organization
Quality assurance, quality improvement and control as well as methods for constant quality improvement
Central quality management systems in Finland within social and health care

Location and time

Online and introduction on Campus
6.9 at 8.15-11.30 Introduction and lecture on Campus
26.9 at 12.30-15.45 Online
31.10a at 12.30-15.45 Online

Materials

ntroduced in the course moodle page

Teaching methods

Lectures, individual studies and group work.

Student workload

1 ECTS credit = 27h
5 ECTS credits = 135h

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

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)

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 assignment:
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

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:
- Anticipates the development of new laboratory methods in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
- Anticipates the development of new technology and future trends in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
- Is able to plan, execute and evaluate the development of clinical methods taking into account the continuous development of technology.

Content

New clinical laboratory methods and their usability
Advanced technologies in clinical laboratory and their usability
Future trends-in clinical laboratory, their impact and usability in perspective of new methods

Location and time

Autumn 2024
Online implemented through the cooperation network BioRad

Materials

According to the lecturer's instructions

Teaching methods

Introduction to the course, self studies, individual assignment.

Exam schedules

Seminar with presentation of the students assignments in February 2025

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 Savonia, Novia, OAMK and Metropolia. Course material is found on Moodle of Metropolia.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

The student is able to recognize the development of new laboratory methods and technologies in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise.
The student can describe the implementation and development of new clinical laboratory methods and technologies.

Assessment criteria, good (3)

The student keeps up with the development of new laboratory methods and technologies in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
The student is able to plan, implement and develop new clinical laboratory methods and technologies.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The student anticipates the development of new laboratory methods and technologies in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
The student is able to plan, execute and evaluate the implementation and development of clinical laboratory methods and technologies.

Assessment methods and criteria

The course completion requires:
active engagement with the course material
completing compulsory assessment tasks (detailed above)
The course evaluation is based on adequately achieving learning outcomes as evidenced in
the assessment tasks.

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

The student does not anticipate the development of new laboratory methods and technologies in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise.
The student cannot describe the implementation and development of new clinical laboratory methods and technologies.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

The student is able to recognize the development of new laboratory methods and technologies in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise.
The student can describe the implementation and development of new clinical laboratory methods and technologies

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

The student keeps up with the development of new laboratory methods and technologies in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
The student is able to plan, implement and develop new clinical laboratory methods and technologies.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The student anticipates the development of new laboratory methods and technologies in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
The student is able to plan, execute and evaluate the implementation and development of clinical laboratory methods and technologies.

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Further information

Assessment
The course completion requires:
Active engagement with the course material
Completing compulsory assessment tasks (detailed above)

The course evaluation is based on adequately achieving learning outcomes as evidenced in
the assessment tasks.

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 2024
Online course in Teams
Lectures; 12.11, 26.11, 10.12 (12.00-14.45)
Compulsory seminar

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
Seminars

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 define structure, service and outcome quality and meaning of quality assurance from the different perspectives
- is able to identify and apply prevailing quality assessment methods and quality standards within social and health care
- is able to describe the most central quality management systems within social- and health care
- is able to integrate quality assurance and quality improvement to her/his professional duties
- is able to plan and implement evaluation of one’s work field/activity/operation

Content

Perspective on quality management, quality policy, quality system
Quality standards within social and health care organization
Quality assurance, quality improvement and control as well as methods for constant quality improvement
Central quality management systems in Finland within social and health care

Location and time

6.9 kl 8.15-11.30 Introduktion och föreläsning på Campus
26.9 12.30-15.45 Online
31.10 kl 12.30-15.45 Online

Materials

Introduced in the course moodle page

Teaching methods

Lectures, individual studies and group work.
Introduction to the course at Campus
Online

Student workload

1c = 27h
5c= 135h

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

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)

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 assignment:
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

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
- 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

Autumn 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:
- is able to describe the content, characteristics and prospects of welfare policy
- is able to analyse the international and national trends of the international community
- is able to contribute to further development of the client/patient/user's participation and participation in health and care
- is able to influence the development of her/his own business area in contact with the environment and with political decision makers

Content

Social and health policy
Welfare policy
Community Development

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:
- Anticipates future challenges in his/her chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies the acquired knowledge in developing laboratory work in interprofessional teams

Content

Elective area of clinical expertise according to the student’s individual study plan

Location and time

Spring 2025 and 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 Metropolia and Oulu University of Applied Science. Course material is found on Moodle of Metropolia.

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 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 describe and apply theory and practice of human resources from an interdisciplinary perspective
- is able to lead and promote diversity in the workplace and has the ability to value and develop an inclusive organisational culture
- in able to organise the business towards a continuous competence development
- is able to work for a sustainable work community development
- is able to apply an ethical approach at work

Content

Working tutorial
Staff management
Labor law
Practical staff administration and collective agreement issues
Human resource-oriented leadership, employee interviews and work motivation.

Location and time

Blended learning.
21.3 kl 9-12
4.4. kl 12.30-15.30
24.4. kl 9-12
22.5 kl 12.30-15.30

Materials

Introduced in the course moodle page

Teaching methods

Lectures, individual studies and group work.
Blended learning

Completion alternatives

Case studies
Self studies
Group Work

Student workload

1c = 27h
5c= 135h

Lectures (9h), Online or at Campus
Individual studies (122h) Individiual studies and group work.
Seminar (4h). Online or at Campus

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

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:
- Acts as an expert in his/her chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and participates in the multiprofessional competence development of the work community

Content

Preanalytics and customer processes and their development in the chosen area of expertise

Location and time

Spring 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 in

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 Metropolia and Turku University of Applied Science. Course material is found on Moodle of Metropolia.

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 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:
- Anticipates the development of new laboratory methods in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
- Is able to plan, execute and evaluate the implementation, development and maintenance of clinical methods.

Content

Implementation process of new clinical laboratory methods.
Laboratory method verification and validation.
Maintenance of analytics (methods and instruments) in the clinical laboratory.

Location and time

Spring 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 in

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 Metropolia, Savonia, OAMK and Novia. Course material is found on Moodle of Metropolia.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

The student is able to recognize the development of new laboratory methods in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise.
The student can describe the implementation and development of new clinical laboratory methods.

Assessment criteria, good (3)

The student keeps up with the development of new laboratory methods in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
The student is able to plan, implement and develop new clinical laboratory methods.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The student anticipates the development of new laboratory methods in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
The student is able to plan, execute and evaluate the implementation and development of clinical laboratory methods.

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)

Assessment criteria can be seen on the Moodle plat form of the BioRad cooperation

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- is familiar with the principles of person-centred care in the encounter with people with memory disorders
- can apply communication skills for creating and maintaining meaningful relationships with people with memory disorders.
- can make use of activities and interventions to promote well-being and activate people with memory disorder
- have developed awareness of cultural differences and how they can affect care and interaction.
- can reflect on their own cultural awareness

Content

- the most common memory disorders
- basic principles of person-centered care
- customized communication
- identification and assessment of mental health needs
- customized activities and inventions that promote well-being
- cultural competence and development

Evaluation scale

H-5

Objective

The student:
- is able to recognize and analyze the development of leadership studies in modern organizations, with an emphasis on healthcare organizations.
- is able to explain and interpret change actions in workplaces that are both inclusive and empowering for all participants
- is able to identify and describe forces of organizational change and how these can be actively worked with in order to promote innovation and entrepreneurship

Content

Change leadership theories
Strategic leadership
Evaluation Practice

Location and time

Online
7.1.2025, 15-17, Change leadership, Kick-off Meeting
21.1.2025, 15-17, Change Leadership
4.2.2025, 15-17, Change Leadership
11.2.2025, 9-16, Possibilities for future Nordic Health and welfare seminar (Change Leadership) 9-16

Materials

To be introduced during the introductory lecture.

Teaching methods

Lectures - 16 hours
Seminar 9 hours
Small-group work - 20 hours
Individual studies - 90 hours

Student workload

Total workload of the course: 135 hours
Of which autonomous studies: 135 hours
Of which scheduled studies: 25 hours

Further information

The course is arranged in collaboration with ARCADA.
Lectures are given in English, but written assignment(s) can be returned in either English or Swedish.

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

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:
- Is able to critically evaluate and present safety culture in clinical radiography
- Is able to manage it safety culture in clinical radiography
- Is ethical and cost-effective in clinical radiography
- Is able to describe and apply quality management models and theories in clinical radiography
- Is able to describe and apply concepts and principles of safety culture in clinical radiography
- Is s able to use the most general evaluation methods in clinical radiography

Content

Safety culture in clinical radiography
Ethics and cost-effectiveness in clinical radiography
Quality management models in clinical radiography
Evaluation methods in clinical radiography

Materials

According to the lecturer's instructions

Teaching methods

Virtual studies

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)

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

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 (3-4)

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)

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:
- is able to handle patient/client health and disease conditions, through adequate medical history, status assessment and treatment
- is able to teach and guide patients/clients
- is able to create and maintain effective relationships with patients/clients and colleagues
- is able to clarify the professional role of the advanced clinical nurse

Content

Advanced clinical nursing care

Location and time

Autumn 25

Materials

Alotaibi T, Al Anizi CA. The impact of advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) role on adult patients with cancer: A quantitative systematic review. Appl Nurs Res. 2020 Dec;56:151370. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2020.151370.
Buckley L, Robertson S, Wilson T, Sharpless J, Bolton S. The Role of the Specialist Nurse in Gynaecological Cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2018 Sep 11;20(10):83. doi: 10.1007/s11912-018-0734-6.
Craswell A, Dwyer T. Reasons for choosing or refusing care from a nurse practitioner: Results from a national population-based survey. J Adv Nurs. 2019 Dec;75(12):3668-3676. doi: 10.1111/jan.14176.
Heale R, Rietze L, Hill L, Roles S. Development of Nurse Practitioner Competencies for Advance Care Planning. J Hosp Palliat Nurs. 2018 Apr;20(2):166-171. doi: 10.1097/NJH.0000000000000425.
Jackson A, Carberry M. The advance nurse practitioner in critical care: a workload evaluation. Nurs Crit Care. 2015 Mar;20(2):71-7. doi: 10.1111/nicc.12133.
Townsend K, Johnson KS, Jones S, Spurlock A. Nurse Practitioner's Confidence and Competence of Advance Directives: The Benefits of an Educational Program. Hosp Top. 2023 May 2:1-7. doi: 10.1080/00185868.2023.2201693. Epub ahead of print.
You are allowed to find other articles but don’t forget to add the list of articles you have used in the end of your work.

Teaching methods

Lecture and seminar

Exam schedules

see Moodle

Completion alternatives

Seminar is obligatory

Student workload

1 ECTS=27 hours

Further information

instruction for the task and the aims will be given in the first lecture

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

0-5

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

The student did not achieve any of the criteria points, in the task requirement ( see in Moodle)

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

SHV18AK01, The professional paradigm of a Nurse practioner
SHV14AK02, Anatomy and pathophysiology
SHV14AK03, Clinical assessment and nursing care
SHV14AK04, Clinical Pharmacology

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
Seminars

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 describe the content, characteristics and prospects of welfare policy
- is able to analyse the international and national trends of the international community
- is able to contribute to further development of the client/patient/user's participation and participation in health and care
- is able to influence the development of her/his own business area in contact with the environment and with political decision makers

Content

Social and health policy
Welfare policy
Community Development

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:
- Anticipates the development of new laboratory methods in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
- Anticipates the development of new technology and future trends in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
- Is able to plan, execute and evaluate the development of clinical methods taking into account the continuous development of technology.

Content

New clinical laboratory methods and their usability
Advanced technologies in clinical laboratory and their usability
Future trends-in clinical laboratory, their impact and usability in perspective of new methods

Location and time

Autumn 2024
Online implemented through the cooperation network BioRad

Materials

According to the lecturer's instructions

Teaching methods

Introduction to the course, self studies, individual assignment.

Exam schedules

Seminar with presentation of the students assignments in February 2025

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 Savonia, Novia, OAMK and Metropolia. Course material is found on Moodle of Metropolia.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

The student is able to recognize the development of new laboratory methods and technologies in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise.
The student can describe the implementation and development of new clinical laboratory methods and technologies.

Assessment criteria, good (3)

The student keeps up with the development of new laboratory methods and technologies in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
The student is able to plan, implement and develop new clinical laboratory methods and technologies.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The student anticipates the development of new laboratory methods and technologies in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
The student is able to plan, execute and evaluate the implementation and development of clinical laboratory methods and technologies.

Assessment methods and criteria

The course completion requires:
active engagement with the course material
completing compulsory assessment tasks (detailed above)
The course evaluation is based on adequately achieving learning outcomes as evidenced in
the assessment tasks.

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

The student does not anticipate the development of new laboratory methods and technologies in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise.
The student cannot describe the implementation and development of new clinical laboratory methods and technologies.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

The student is able to recognize the development of new laboratory methods and technologies in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise.
The student can describe the implementation and development of new clinical laboratory methods and technologies

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

The student keeps up with the development of new laboratory methods and technologies in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
The student is able to plan, implement and develop new clinical laboratory methods and technologies.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The student anticipates the development of new laboratory methods and technologies in the chosen area of clinical laboratory expertise and applies acquired knowledge in multiprofessional teams.
The student is able to plan, execute and evaluate the implementation and development of clinical laboratory methods and technologies.

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Further information

Assessment
The course completion requires:
Active engagement with the course material
Completing compulsory assessment tasks (detailed above)

The course evaluation is based on adequately achieving learning outcomes as evidenced in
the assessment tasks.

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 2024
Online course in Teams
Lectures; 12.11, 26.11, 10.12 (12.00-14.45)
Compulsory seminar

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:
- is able to describe pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic principles, as well as general mechanisms of action for drugs at the molecular and cellular level
- is able to account for and draw conclusions from individual variations, interaction mechanisms and side effects of drug substances
- is able to describe the mechanisms of action at the molecular level, as well as account for effects, use area and side effects for different drug groups
- is able to relate pharmacological mechanisms of action to the treatment of pathological conditions
- is able to evaluate the potential benefit and risk of multiple drug use (polypharmacy)
- is able to identify health problems that are due to drug side effects and interaction
- is able to apply different pedagogical theories when teaching patients who have got prescribed drugs

Content

Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics
Drug interaction and side effects
The action mechanisms of the drugs
Polypharmacy

Location and time

Autumn 2024 according to schedule

Materials

Course literature:
Nordeng H. och Spigset O. et.al. (2020) Farmakologi och läkemedelsanvändning. Studentlitteratur.
Alternative literature:
Ritter J., Flower R., Henderson G., Loke Y.K., MacEwan D. and Rang H. (2018) Rang and Dale´s Pharmacology, 9th edition, Elsevier.
Scientific articles and other distributed material

Teaching methods

Lectures, self-studies and exercises.

Exam schedules

Two out of five credits are examined by a written, individual exam 13.12.2024
Possibility of re-take on general re-take 17.01.2025 and 07.02.2025
Three out of five credits are examined by individual written assignments and quizzes on line.

Completion alternatives

Examination

Student workload

The course is 5 cr which corresponds to 135 hours of work.
Lectures and examination 12 h
Self-studies and online exams 123 h

Further information

More information on Moodle

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

Written examination corresponds to 2 cr, and individual, written assignments and online quizzes corresponds to 3 cr.
A passed grade is required in all exams and tasks.

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

The student has very weak knowledge of basic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.
The student has not submitted their individual assignments.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

The student has satisfactory knowledge of basic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, as well as satisfactory knowledge of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of different groups of drugs.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

The student has good knowledge of basic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, as well as good knowledge of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of different groups of drugs.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The student has excellent knowledge of basic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, as well as excellent knowledge of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of different groups of drugs.

Qualifications

Basic pharmacology and drug treatment

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

29.10.2024 15.00 - 17.00 Teams
05.11.2024 15.00 - 17.00 Teams
12.11.2024 15.00 - 17.00 Teams
19.11.2024 15.00 - 17.00 Teams
26.11.2024 15.00 - 17.00 Teams
10.12.2024 15.00 - 17.00 Teams

Materials

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

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

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

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- Is able to evaluate and develop clinical laboratory work by using national and international quality guidelines, standards and evidence based knowledge

Content

National quality guidelines
International quality guidelines
Evidence based biomedical laboratory science

Location and time

Autumn 2024
Online implemented through the cooperation network BioRad

Materials

Given at course introduction

Teaching methods

Introduction to the course, expert lectures and self studies.

Exam schedules

Seminar with presentation of the students assignments in December 2024

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 Metropolia, Savonia and TAMK. Course material is found on Moodle of Metropolia.

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

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

Assessment criteria can be seen on the Moodle plat form of the BioRad cooperation

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- is able to assess and develop patient centred by literature review based on researches

Content

Patient centred and patient safe clinical radiography according to ethical codes, law, guidelines and best practices.
Literature review as a method for get research based evidence and as a tool to develop patient centred and patient safety clinical radiography

Location and time

17.9 at 16.15-17.00
8.10 at 16.15-19.30
10.10 at 16.15-17.45
29.10 at 16.15-17.45
5.11 at 16.15-17.45
12.11 at 16.15-17.45
10.12 at 16.15-18.30

Materials

According to the lecturer's instructions

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)

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

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 (3-4)

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)

Qualifications

No prerequisites

Objective

The student:
- is familiar with the principles of person-centred care in the encounter with people with memory disorders
- can apply communication skills for creating and maintaining meaningful relationships with people with memory disorders.
- can make use of activities and interventions to promote well-being and activate people with memory disorder
- have developed awareness of cultural differences and how they can affect care and interaction.
- can reflect on their own cultural awareness

Content

- the most common memory disorders
- basic principles of person-centered care
- customized communication
- identification and assessment of mental health needs
- customized activities and inventions that promote well-being
- cultural competence and development

Evaluation scale

H-5

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

Autumn 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:
- is able to apply her/his knowledge in anatomy and pathophysiology, and to connect the knowledge to clinical context

Content

Anatomy
Pathofysiology

Location and time

Autumn 2024 according to schedule

Materials

Material on Moodle.
A fundamental book in Human Physiology and Anatomy, for example one of these books:
1) Aldskogius H. and Rydqvist B. (2018) Den friska människan, Anatomi och fysiologi. Liber, Stockholm
2) Nicolaysen G. and Holck P. (2014) Anatomi och fysiologi. Studentlitteratur, Lund
3) Sand, Sjaastad, Haug and Bjålie (2007). Människokroppen. Liber, Stockholm
4) Henriksson O. and Rasmusson M. (2018) Fysiologi : med relevant anatomi. Studentlitteratur, Lund
5) Tortora, G. and Derrickson B. Principles of Anatomy and Physiology, 15:de upplagan (2017 eller äldre upplagor), Wiley.
Book in Patophysiology:
Braun C. and Anderson C. (2012) Patofysiologi : om hur förändringar i kroppens funktioner påverkar vår hälsa. Studentlitteratur, Lund.

Teaching methods

Lectures, self-studies and written assignments

Exam schedules

Written assignments Autumn 2024, and on-line quizzes (exams)

Completion alternatives

Examination

Student workload

The course is 5 cr which corresponds to 135 hours of work
Lectures 12 h
Self-studies, tasks and online exams 123 h

Further information

More information on the Moodle page of the course

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 written assignments and quizzes will be graded and based on these the course will be graded between 0-5

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

The student has pore knowledge of fundamental Anatomy, Physiology and Patophysiology.
The student has not handed in all assignments.
The student did not get a passed grade in the obligatory online quizzes

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

The student has basic knowledge of fundamental Anatomy, Physiology and Patophysiology.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

The student has good knowledge of fundamental Anatomy, Physiology and Patophysiology.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The student has excellent knowledge of fundamental Anatomy, Physiology and Patophysiology.

Qualifications

The student:
Has knowledge of the various tissue types and the structure of the musculosceletal system, as well as of the anatomy and physiology of the various organ systems.
Has knowledge of and understands how blood, skin, circulation, lymph circulation, respiration, digestion and urinary excretion work
Has knowledge of and understands how the endocrine system regulates metabolism and organ functions
Has knowledge of and understands the reproduction
Has knowledge of and understand how the nervous system regulates the physiological processes
Have knowledge of and understands the structure and function of the sensory organs
Has basic knowledge of pathophysiology

Objective

The student:
- is able to define structure, service and outcome quality and meaning of quality assurance from the different perspectives
- is able to identify and apply prevailing quality assessment methods and quality standards within social and health care
- is able to describe the most central quality management systems within social- and health care
- is able to integrate quality assurance and quality improvement to her/his professional duties
- is able to plan and implement evaluation of one’s work field/activity/operation

Content

Perspective on quality management, quality policy, quality system
Quality standards within social and health care organization
Quality assurance, quality improvement and control as well as methods for constant quality improvement
Central quality management systems in Finland within social and health care

Location and time

Online and introduction on Campus
6.9 at 8.15-11.30 Introduction and lecture on Campus
26.9 at 12.30-15.45 Online
31.10a at 12.30-15.45 Online

Materials

ntroduced in the course moodle page

Teaching methods

Lectures, individual studies and group work.

Student workload

1 ECTS credit = 27h
5 ECTS credits = 135h

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

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)

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 assignment:
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

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:
- 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 define structure, service and outcome quality and meaning of quality assurance from the different perspectives
- is able to identify and apply prevailing quality assessment methods and quality standards within social and health care
- is able to describe the most central quality management systems within social- and health care
- is able to integrate quality assurance and quality improvement to her/his professional duties
- is able to plan and implement evaluation of one’s work field/activity/operation

Content

Perspective on quality management, quality policy, quality system
Quality standards within social and health care organization
Quality assurance, quality improvement and control as well as methods for constant quality improvement
Central quality management systems in Finland within social and health care

Location and time

6.9 kl 8.15-11.30 Introduktion och föreläsning på Campus
26.9 12.30-15.45 Online
31.10 kl 12.30-15.45 Online

Materials

Introduced in the course moodle page

Teaching methods

Lectures, individual studies and group work.
Introduction to the course at Campus
Online

Student workload

1c = 27h
5c= 135h

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

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)

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 assignment:
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

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:
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

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:
- is able to develop optimization process of patient dose and image quality in clinical radiography
-is able to describe and apply the principles of justification and optimization of examinations/treatments by their indications, procedures and image quality
- is able to apply international, national and organisation specific best practices
- is able to evaluate and develop factors associated to image quality and patient dose
- is s able to develop expertise in dose optimization

Content

Part a 5 ECTS: Survey of existing situation
Part b 5 ECTS: Developing practices and evaluation of the development

Materials

According to the lecturer's instructions

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)

Qualifications

No prerequisites