Academic year 2021 - 2022

•   Advanced clinical nursing care SHV18AK05-3005 30.08.2021-31.12.2021  5 credits  (SHV19H-V) +-
  Competence objectives of the study unit

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

  Prerequisites

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

  Content of the study unit

  Advanced clinical nursing care

  ---

  Person(s) in charge

  Camilla Strandell-Laine

  Mode of delivery

  Face-to-face

  Learning material

  See Moodle for more information

  Learning methods

  Practice 3 weeks
  Written assignments

  Teaching language

  Swedish

  Timing

  30.08.2021 - 31.12.2021

  Enrollment date range

  11.06.2021 - 29.08.2021

  • 5 credits

  Group(s)

  • SHV19H-V

  Teachers and responsibilities

  Ann-Louise Glasberg

  Responsible unit

  Faculty of Health and Welfare

  Degree Programme(s)

  Degree Programme in Social Services and Health Care

  Assessment scale

  Approved/Rejected

  Alternative methods of attainment for implementation

  Approved internship
  Approved assignments

  Exam dates and retake possibilities

  Mandatory attendance during practice, 38 h/week

  Student's schedule and workload

  38 h/week

  Assessment criteria

  Approved / Failed

  Approved internship
  Approved assignments

•   Advanced clinical nursing care SHV18AK05-3004 30.08.2021-31.12.2021  5 credits  (SHV20HD-V, ...) +-
  Competence objectives of the study unit

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

  Prerequisites

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

  Content of the study unit

  Advanced clinical nursing care

  ---

  Person(s) in charge

  Camilla Strandell-Laine

  Mode of delivery

  Face-to-face

  Learning material

  For the subjects’ critical thinking and clinical judgment and clinical decision making 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
  Boman, E., Glasberg, AL., Levy-Malmberg, R., Fagerstrom, L. (2019). ’Thinking outside the box’: advanced geriatric nursing in primary health care in Scandinavia. BMC Nursing. 18:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-019-0350-2
  Boman, E., Levy-Malmberg., Fagerström, L. (2019). Differences and similarities in scope of practice between registered nurses and nurse specialists in emergency care - an interview study, Scandinavian Journal of Caring Science. DOI: 10.1111/scs.12753
  Levy-Malmberg, R., Boman, E. (2019). Fagerstöm, L.M. (red). Klinisk beslutningstaking. i Avancerant Klinisk Sykepleie. (S. 1139-147). Gyldenadak Norsk Forlag
  
  For the subject of critical thinking and EBP please find the following material
  Bläuer, C., Frei, I. A., Schnepp, W., & Spirig, R. (2015). Implementation of a nurse-led education programme for chronic heart failure patients during hospitalisation, and strategies supporting their self-management at home: a practice development project in the context of the Swiss healthcare system. International Practice Development Journal, 5(1), 1–15.
  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 & Classifications. 2010;21(2):82-88.
  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.
  
  
  
  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, Wolther Kluwer Health Lippincott
  Timby, B. K. (2013). Fundamental Nursing Skills and Concept. 10th ed. Wolter Kluwer Health. Lippincott
  
  For the subject of OSCE
  Levy-Malmberg, R. (2019). Fagerstöm, L.M. (red). Objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) for vurdering av klinisk kompetanse. . i Avancerant Klinisk Sykepleie. (S. 235-253). Gyldenadak Norsk Forlag
  Taylor, I., Bing-Jonsson, P.C., Levy-Malmberg., Fagerström, L. (2019). The Objective Structured Clinical Examination in evolving nurse practitioner education: A study of students' and examiners’ experiences. Nurse Education in Practice. 37(5), 115-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2019.04.001

  Learning methods

  lectures and practice

  Objects, timing and methods of assessment

  0-5

  Teaching language

  Swedish

  Timing

  30.08.2021 - 31.12.2021

  Enrollment date range

  11.06.2021 - 29.08.2021

  • 5 credits

  Group(s)

  • SHV20HD-V
  • SHV20HH-V

  Teachers and responsibilities

  Rika Levy-Malmberg

  Responsible unit

  Faculty of Health and Welfare

  Degree Programme(s)

  Degree Programme in Social Services and Health Care

  Campus

  Vasa, Wolffskavägen 31

  Assessment scale

  H-5

  Practical training and working life co-operation

  practice in clinical environment and practice in class

  Exam dates and retake possibilities

  OSCE

  Student's schedule and workload

  27H=1 sp

•   Advancement of knowledge and operations management SHV16FU01-3006 01.09.2021-31.12.2021  5 credits  (SHV21HD-V, ...) +-
  Competence objectives of the study unit

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

  Prerequisites

  No prerequisites

  Content of the study unit

  Science theory
  Critical evaluation and review

  Assessment criteria

  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. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

  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)
  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

  ---

  Person(s) in charge

  Camilla Strandell-Laine

  Mode of delivery

  20% Face-to-face, 80% Distance learning

  Learning material

  OBLIGATORISK LITTERATUR:
  1. Hasson H., Schwarz U.T 2017. Användbar evidens om följsamhet och anpassningar.
  2.a. Malcolm, P. 2015. Modern teoribildning i socialt arbete. Bokförlaget Natur och Kultur, Stockholm.
  eller
  2.b. Nortvedt, P. 2006. Sensibilitet och reflektion. Filosofi och vetenskapsteori för vårdprofessioner. Bokförlaget Daidalos, Göteborg.
  eller
  2.c. Wiklund Gustin L., Bergbom E. 2012 reviderad 2017. Vårdvetenskapliga begrepp i teori och praktik. Studentlitteratur
  3.a. Birkler, J. 2012. Vetenskapsteori-en grundbok, Liber.
  eller
  3.b. Sohlberg. B-M. & Sohlberg, P. 2008. Kunskapens former: vetenskapsteori och forskningsmetod.
  eller
  3.c. Thurén, T. (2019). Vetenskapsteori för nybörjare (Tredje upplagan.). Liber AB.
  4. Greenhalgh, T. 2012. Att läsa vetenskapliga artiklar och rapporter grunden för evidensbaserad vård. Studentlitteratur, Lund.
  5.a. Willman, A, Stoltz, P. & Bahtsevani, C. 2011. Evidensbaserad omvårdnad. En bro mellan forskning & klinisk verksamhet. Studentlitteratur, Lund.
  eller
  5.b. Freij, B. 2012. Evidens i praktiken - grundbok i evidensbaserat socialt arbete. Gothia förlag, Stockholm.
  
  REFERENSLITTERATUR:
  Alvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K.2008. Tolkning och reflektion. Vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ metod. Studentlitteratur, Lund.
  Andersen, H. (red). 1994. Vetenskapsteori och metodlära: introduktion. Studentlitteratur, Lund.
  Bjereld, U., Denker, M. & Hinnfors, J. 2009. Varför vetenskap? Om vikten av problem och teori i forskningsprocessen. Studentlitteratur Ab, Lund.
  Bohlin, I. & Sager, M. (red.) 2011. Evidensens många ansikten. Evidensbaserad praktik i praktiken. Arkiv förlag, Lund.
  Eriksson, K. & Lindström, U.Å. (red) 2003. Gryning II Klinisk vårdvetenskap. Enheten för vårdvetenskap. Åbo Akademi, Vasa.
  Eriksson, K., Lindström, U.Å., Matilainen, D., Lindholm, L. 2007. Gryning III Vårdvetenskap och hermeneutik. Enheten för vårdvetenskap. Åbo Akademi, Vasa.
  Haaparanta, L. & Niiniluoto, I. 2016. Johdatus tieteelliseen ajatteluun, Gaudeamus.
  Kjørup, S. 2009. Människovetenskaperna. Problem och traditioner i humanioras vetenskapsteori. Studentlitteratur, Lund.
  Mäntysaari, M., Pohjola, A., & Pösö, T. (toim). 2009. Sosiaalityö ja teoria. PS-Kustannus, Jyväskylä.
  Pirttilä-Backman, A-M., Ahokas, M., & Myyry, L.2005. Arvot, moraali ja yhteiskunta. Sosiaalipsykologisia näkökulmia yhteiskunnan muutokseen. Gaudeamus, Helsinki. (not translated)

  Learning methods

  Hybridundervisning:
  Självstudier
  Föreläsningar
  Grupparbete (not translated)

  Objects, timing and methods of assessment

  Moduler 1-2 bedöms med skalan 0-5. Bedömning baseras på:
  - Analysförmåga
  - Förmåga att kunna sammanfatta relevant data
  - Kritisk reflektion
  - Användning av litteratur
  - Användning av Novias skrivanvisningar.
  För godkänt kursvitsord bör alla deluppgifter (Moduler 1-2) vara godkända. (not translated)

  Teaching language

  Swedish

  Timing

  01.09.2021 - 31.12.2021

  Enrollment date range

  11.06.2021 - 12.09.2021

  • 5 credits

  Group(s)

  • SHV21HD-V
  • SHV20HD-V
  • SHV20HH-Å
  • SHV21HD-Å
  • SHV20HH-V
  • SHV20HD-Å

  Teachers and responsibilities

  Emilia Kielo-Viljamaa

  Responsible unit

  Faculty of Health and Welfare

  Degree Programme(s)

  Degree Programme in Social Services and Health Care

  Campus

  Åbo, Henriksgatan 7

  Share of online studies

  4 credits

  Assessment scale

  H-5

  Alternative methods of attainment for implementation

  Modul 1: Individuell skriftlig uppgift (granskning av 2 vetenskapliga artiklar, artikelanalys, implementeringsplan
  Modul 2: Begreppskarta, skriftligt gruppuppgift och kollegial feedback (not translated)

  Exam dates and retake possibilities

  Kursen kan avläggas under perioden 30.8.2021-31.12.2021.
  Studerande rekommenderas att göra kursen under hösttermninen 2021.
  
  Modul 1:
  - Granskning av 2 vetenskapliga artiklar
  - Artikelanalys och implementeringsplan
  Lämnas in på Moodle senast 31.10.2021 kl 23.59
  
  Modul 2:
  - Begreppskarta
  - Skriftligt gruppuppgift och kollegial feedback
  Lämnas in på Moodle senast 30.11.2021 kl 23.59 (not translated)

  Student's schedule and workload

  Modul 1: Utvärdering och granskning 67,5h (närundervisning 6h, granskning av vetenskapliga artiklar 11,5h, artikelanalys + implementeringsplan 50h)
  
  Modul 2: Vetenskapsteori 67,5h (närundervisning 4h, begreppskarta 6h, gruppuppgift och kollegial feedback 57,5h) (not translated)

  Content scheduling

  Modul 1: Utvärdering och granskning
  Modul 2: Vetenskapsteori (not translated)

  Assessment criteria

  Modul 1:
  Granskning av 2 vetenskapliga artiklar:
  - Uppgiften innehåller inte alla krävda delar
  - Den tekniska utformningen brister
  - Frågorna besvaras vagt och smalt
  Artikelanalys och implementeringsplan:
  - Litteraturen refereras inte
  - Reflektioner framförs inte
  - Den tekniska utformningen brister
  - Helhetsbilden och sammanhangen fattas
  - Uppgiften innehåller inte alla krävda delar
  - Kriterierna för vitsord 1 uppfylls inte
  - Texten är fragmentarisk och den besvarar inte frågorna
  
  Modul 2:
  Bergreppskarta:
  - Uppgiften innehåller inte alla krävda delar
  - Den tekniska utformningen brister
  Gruppuppgift och kollegial feedback:
  - Litteraturen refereras inte
  - Reflektioner framförs inte
  - Den tekniska utformningen brister
  - Helhetsbilden och sammanhangen fattas
  - Uppgiften innehåller inte alla krävda delar
  - Kriterierna för vitsord 1 uppfylls inte
  - Texten är fragmentarisk och den besvarar inte frågorna (not translated)

  Assessment criteria – satisfactory (1-2)

  Modul 1:
  Granskning av 2 vetenskapliga artiklar:
  - Uppgiften innehåller några krävda delar
  - Den tekniska utformningen är nöjaktig
  - Frågorna besvaras vagt och smalt
  Artikelanalys och implementeringsplan:
  - Litteraturen refereras
  - Reflektioner framförs endast i begränsad utsträckning
  - Den tekniska utformningen är nöjaktig
  - Helhetsbilden och sammanhangen är nöjaktig
  - Uppgiften innehåller inte alla krävda delar
  
  Modul 2:
  Bergreppskarta:
  - Uppgiften innehåller några krävda delar
  - Den tekniska utformningen är nöjaktig
  Gruppuppgift och kollegial feedback:
  - Litteraturen refereras
  - Reflektioner framförs endast i begränsad utsträckning
  - Den tekniska utformningen är nöjaktig
  - Helhetsbilden och sammanhangen är nöjaktig
  - Uppgiften innehåller inte alla krävda delar (not translated)

  Assessment criteria – good (3-4)

  Modul 1:
  Granskning av 2 vetenskapliga artiklar:
  - Uppgiften innehåller alla krävda delar
  - Den tekniska utformningen är god
  - Frågorna besvaras
  Artikelanalys och implementeringsplan:
  - Litteraturen tillämpas
  - Texten är reflekterande och kritiska synpunkter finns
  - Den tekniska utformningen är god
  - Helhetsbilden och sammanhangen är god
  - Uppgiften innehåller alla krävda delar
  
  Modul 2:
  Bergreppskarta:
  - Uppgiften innehåller alla krävda delar
  - Den tekniska utformningen är god
  Gruppuppgift och kollegial feedback:
  - Litteraturen tillämpas
  - Texten är reflekterande och kritiska synpunkter finns
  - Den tekniska utformningen är god
  - Helhetsbilden och sammanhangen är god
  - Uppgiften innehåller alla krävda delar (not translated)

  Assessment criteria – excellent (5)

  Modul 1:
  Granskning av 2 vetenskapliga artiklar:
  - Uppgiften innehåller alla krävda delar
  - Den tekniska utformningen är berömlig
  - Frågorna besvaras uttömmande och mångsidigt
  Artikelanalys och implementeringsplan:
  - Litteraturen analyseras och tillämpas
  - Reflektionen är vetenskapligt analytisk
  - Den tekniska utformningen är berömlig
  - Helhetsbilden och sammanhangen är berömlig
  - Uppgiften innehåller alla krävda delar
  
  Modul 2:
  Bergreppskarta:
  - Uppgiften innehåller alla krävda delar
  - Den tekniska utformningen är berömlig
  Gruppuppgift och kollegial feedback:
  - Litteraturen analyseras och tillämpas
  - Reflektionen är vetenskapligt analytisk
  - Den tekniska utformningen är berömlig
  - Helhetsbilden och sammanhangen är berömlig
  - Uppgiften innehåller alla krävda delar (not translated)

•   Clinical pharmacology SHV14AK04-3002 30.08.2021-28.02.2022  5 credits  (SHV21HD-V, ...) +-
  Competence objectives of the study unit

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

  Prerequisites

  Basic pharmacology and drug treatment

  Content of the study unit

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

  Assessment criteria

  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. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

  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)
  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

  ---

  Person(s) in charge

  Camilla Strandell-Laine

  Mode of delivery

  60% Face-to-face, 40% Distance learning

  Learning material

  Kurslitteratur:
  Nordeng H. och Spigset O. med flera (2020) Farmakologi och läkemedelsanvändning. Studentlitteratur. alternativt äldre upplagor av boken från 2014 eller 2009
  Alternativ litteratur:
  Rang, H.P., Dale, M.M., Ritter, J.M., Flower R.J. och Henderson G.(2012). Pharmacology. (7th ed.) Elsevier.
  Vetenskapliga artiklar och annat distribuerat material (not translated)

  Learning methods

  Föreläsningar, diskussioner och självstudier. (not translated)

  Objects, timing and methods of assessment

  Examination motsvarande 2 sp, samt skriftliga arbeten motsvarande 3 sp (not translated)

  Teaching language

  Swedish

  Timing

  30.08.2021 - 28.02.2022

  Enrollment date range

  11.06.2021 - 12.09.2021

  • 5 credits

  Group(s)

  • SHV21HD-V
  • SHV20HD-V
  • SHV21HD-Å
  • SHV20HH-V

  Teachers and responsibilities

  Camilla Ribacka

  Additional information

  Mera information på kursens Moodle (not translated)

  Responsible unit

  Faculty of Health and Welfare

  Degree Programme(s)

  Degree Programme in Social Services and Health Care

  Campus

  Åbo, Henriksgatan 7

  Share of online studies

  2 credits

  Assessment scale

  H-5

  Alternative methods of attainment for implementation

  Skriftlig examination, samt individuella inlämningsuppgifter (not translated)

  Exam dates and retake possibilities

  Examination x.x.2021. Möjlighet till omtentamen våren 2022
  Skriftliga arbeten (not translated)

  Student's schedule and workload

  Kursen omfattar 5 sp, totalt 135 timmar.
  Föreläsningar och examination 16 h.
  Självstudier och individuella, skriftliga arbeten 119 h. (not translated)

  Assessment criteria

  Studerande har mycket svaga kunskaper i grundläggande farmakokinetik och farmakodynamik.
  Studerande har inte lämnat in sina individuella arbeten (not translated)

  Assessment criteria – satisfactory (1-2)

  Studerande har nöjaktiga kunskaper i grundläggande farmakokinetik och farmakodynamik, samt nöjaktiga kunskaper om olika läkemedelsgruppers farmakokinetik och farmakodynamik (not translated)

  Assessment criteria – good (3-4)

  Studerande har goda kunskaper i grundläggande farmakokinetik och farmakodynamik, samt goda kunskaper om olika läkemedelsgruppers farmakokinetik och farmakodynamik (not translated)

  Assessment criteria – excellent (5)

  Studerande har utmärkta kunskaper i grundläggande farmakokinetik och farmakodynamik, samt utmärkta kunskaper om olika läkemedelsgruppers farmakokinetik och farmakodynamik (not translated)

•   Degree Thesis NOV18EXA03-3010 01.01.2022-31.12.2022  30 credits  (SHV17H-V, ...) +-
  Competence objectives of the study unit

  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

  Prerequisites

  SHV16FU, Research and development

  Content of the study unit

  Thesis idea
  Thesis work plan
  Master´s thesis presentation
  Maturity test

  Assessment criteria

  Assessment criteria – satisfactory (1-2)

  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 (3-4)

  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.

  ---

  Person(s) in charge

  Ann-Louise Glasberg

  Mode of delivery

  Face-to-face

  Teaching language

  Swedish

  Timing

  01.01.2022 - 31.12.2022

  Enrollment date range

  02.07.2018 - 31.07.2018

  • 30 credits

  Group(s)

  • SHV17H-V
  • SHV16H-V
  • SHV15H-V

  Teachers and responsibilities

  Ann-Louise Glasberg

  Degree Programme(s)

  Degree Programme in Social Services and Health Care

  Assessment scale

  H-5

•   Degree Thesis NOV18EXA03-3017 30.08.2021-31.07.2024  30 credits  (SHV21HD-V, ...) +-
  Competence objectives of the study unit

  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

  Prerequisites

  SHV16FU, Research and development

  Content of the study unit

  Thesis idea
  Thesis work plan
  Master´s thesis presentation
  Maturity test

  Assessment criteria

  Assessment criteria – satisfactory (1-2)

  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 (3-4)

  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.

  ---

  Person(s) in charge

  Camilla Strandell-Laine

  Mode of delivery

  Face-to-face

  Teaching language

  Swedish

  Timing

  30.08.2021 - 31.07.2024

  Enrollment date range

  11.06.2021 - 29.08.2021

  • 30 credits

  Group(s)

  • SHV21HD-V
  • SHV21HD-Å

  Teachers and responsibilities

  Ann-Louise Glasberg, Camilla Strandell-Laine

  Responsible unit

  Faculty of Health and Welfare

  Degree Programme(s)

  Degree Programme in Social Services and Health Care

  Campus

  Åbo, Henriksgatan 7

  Assessment scale

  H-5

•   Evidence-based practice and decision-making HCS21EB02-3001 01.09.2021-31.12.2021  5 credits  (HCS21F-Å, ...) +-
  Competence objectives of the study unit

  After completing the course, the student is able to:
  - Develop knowledge and understanding of the principles of evidence-based practice
  - Develop the ability to produce portfolio evidence to underpin practice
  - Identify and analyze problems related to social and health care practices
  - Apply systematic method of critical thinking
  - Apply new knowledge and insight grated from evidence-based practice
  - Demonstrate the ability to use evidence while analyzing new situation (application of evidence)

  Prerequisites

  No prerequisites

  Content of the study unit

  - Critical thinking theories
  - Decision-making process
  - Types of evidence
  - Critical approach to searching evidence form different sources
  - Applying evidence into change process

  Assessment criteria

  Assessment criteria – satisfactory (1-2)

  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 (3-4)

  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

  ---

  Person(s) in charge

  Camilla Strandell-Laine

  Mode of delivery

  60% Face-to-face, 40% Distance learning

  Learning material

  Abu-Baker, N. N., AbuAlrub, S., Obeidat, R. F., & Assmairan, K. (2021). Evidence-based practice beliefs and implementations: a cross-sectional study among undergraduate nursing students. BMC Nursing, 20(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-020-00522-x
  
  
  Chan, R., Gardner, G., Webster, J., & Geary, A. (2010). Building research capacity in the nursing workforce: the design and evaluation of the nurse researcher role. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27(4), 62–69.
  
  Geddis, R. A., Errington, L., Abley, C., Wassall, R., Exley, C., & Thomson, R. (2021). Enhancing shared and surrogate decision making for people living with dementia: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions. Health Expectations, 24(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13167
  
  Hoffmann, T., Gibson, E., Barnett, C., & Maher, C. (2021). Shared decision making in Australian physiotherapy practice: A survey of knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported use. PLoS ONE, 16(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251347
  
  Parvan, K., Hosseini, F. A., Jasemi, M., & Thomson, B. (2021). Attitude of nursing students following the implementation of comprehensive computer-based nursing process in medical surgical internship: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Medical Informatics & Decision Making, 21(1), 1–12.
  Tagney, J., & Haines, C. (2009). Using evidence-based practice to address gaps in nursing knowledge. British Journal of Nursing, 18(8), 484–489. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2009.18.8.41811
  
  critical thinking, critical reasoning, and clinical judgment?
  http://www.elsevieradvantage.com/samplechapters/9781437727760/9781437727760.pdf
  
  Clinical judgment- en 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

  Learning methods

  lectures, students independent work ans mandatory seminar

  Objects, timing and methods of assessment

  0-5

  Teaching language

  English

  Timing

  01.09.2021 - 31.12.2021

  Enrollment date range

  11.06.2021 - 03.09.2021

  • 5 credits

  Group(s)

  • HCS21F-Å
  • HCS21P-Å

  Teachers and responsibilities

  Rika Levy-Malmberg

  Responsible unit

  Faculty of Health and Welfare

  Degree Programme(s)

  Degree Programme in Social Services and Health Care

  Campus

  Åbo, Henriksgatan 7

  Share of online studies

  2 credits

  Assessment scale

  H-5

  Practical training and working life co-operation

  project in clinical environment

  Exam dates and retake possibilities

  autumn 2021

  Student's schedule and workload

  27 hours = 1 ECTS credit

•   Expertise in biomedical laboratory science SHV20BA04-3002 06.09.2021-04.11.2021  5 credits  (SHV20HD-V, ...) +-
  Competence objectives of the study unit

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

  Prerequisites

  No prerequisites

  Content of the study unit

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

  Assessment criteria

  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. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

  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)
  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

  ---

  Person(s) in charge

  Camilla Strandell-Laine

  Mode of delivery

  Distance learning

  Learning material

  Online moodle Metropolia (not translated)

  Learning methods

  Nationell kurs för bioanalytiker inom HYH online
  Föreläsningar
  Tutor online
  Skriftliga arbeten (not translated)

  Teaching language

  English

  Timing

  06.09.2021 - 04.11.2021

  Enrollment date range

  11.06.2021 - 05.09.2021

  • 5 credits

  Group(s)

  • SHV20HD-V
  • SHV20HH-V

  Seats

  0 - 6

  Teachers and responsibilities

  Camilla Strandell-Laine, Ulla Penttinen

  Responsible unit

  Faculty of Health and Welfare

  Degree Programme(s)

  Degree Programme in Social Services and Health Care

  Campus

  Vasa, Wolffskavägen 31

  Share of online studies

  5 credits

  Assessment scale

  H-5

  Exam dates and retake possibilities

  hösten 2021 (not translated)

  Student's schedule and workload

  5 x 27 h (not translated)

•   Leadership for future health care and social services HCS21GL01-3001 26.10.2021-31.12.2021  10 credits  (SHV21HD-V, ...) +-
  Competence objectives of the study unit

  After completing the course, the student will be able to:
  Create and articulate a personal and authentic leadership approach that culminates in a mission statement about continued learning is a key component
  Create a vision and develop behaviors to successfully lead a diverse group of people through uncertain environments
  Present a variety of interventions to enhance an innovative and inclusive work environment by demonstrating cultural sensitivity and advanced communication skills

  Prerequisites

  No prerequisites

  Content of the study unit

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

  Assessment criteria

  Assessment criteria – satisfactory (1-2)

  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 (3-4)

  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

  ---

  Mode of delivery

  Distance learning

  Learning material

  To be introduced during the introductory lecture.

  Learning methods

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

  Teaching language

  English

  Timing

  26.10.2021 - 31.12.2021

  Enrollment date range

  02.07.2021 - 26.10.2021

  • 10 credits

  Group(s)

  • SHV21HD-V
  • HCS21F-Å
  • SHV21HD-Å
  • HCS21P-Å

  Teachers and responsibilities

  Marica Hinders, Camilla Strandell-Laine

  Responsible unit

  Administration

  Degree Programme(s)

  Degree Programme in Social Services and Health Care

  Campus

  Vasa, Wolffskavägen 31

  Share of online studies

  10 credits

  Assessment scale

  H-5

  Exam dates and retake possibilities

  To be introduced during the introductory lecture.

  Student's schedule and workload

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

•   Quality management and evaluation SHV16UL05-3005 30.08.2021-31.12.2021  5 credits  (SHV20HD-V, ...) +-
  Competence objectives of the study unit

  The student is able to:
  Define structure, service and outcome quality and meaning of quality assurance from the different perspectives
  Identify and apply prevailing quality assessment methods and quality standards within social and health care
  Describe the most central quality management systems within social- and health care
  Integrate quality assurance and quality improvement to her/his professional duties
  Plan and implement evaluation of ones work field/activity/operation

  Prerequisites

  No prerequisites

  Content of the study unit

  Different perspective on on quality management, quality policy, quality system
  Quality standards within social and health care organisation
  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

  Assessment criteria

  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. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

  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)
  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

  ---

  Person(s) in charge

  Camilla Strandell-Laine

  Mode of delivery

  60% Face-to-face, 40% Distance learning

  Learning material

  References:
  
  Overall: All the assignment can be found on Moodle page instruction will be given in class during the first lecture
  Books in Ebrary:
  
  Bhat, K.S. 2010. Total Quality Management.
  
  Bolman & Teal T.E 2008: Reframing organization, artistry and leadership.
  
  Christensen, E.H. 2013. Certified Quality Process: an analyst handbook.
  
  Guinane, C. & Davis, N. 2011. Improving quality in outpatient services.
  
  Other:
  
  
  https://www.valvira.fi/web/sv/-/en-effektiv-styrning-av-social-och-halsovarden-forutsatter-tydliga-roller-och-nationella-indikatorer
  
  Buus, N. et al. 2013. Developing a Manual for Strengthening Mental Health Nurses' Clinical Supervision. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 34 (5), 344-9.
  
  Campbell, S. M. (2002): Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care. Quality and Safety in Health Care 11 (4), 358–364.
  
  Conti, T. 2002. A road map through the fog of quality and organizational assessments. Total Quality Management 13 (8).
  
  Crofts, J. et al. 2014. Adaptation and implementation of local maternity dashboards in a Zimbabwean hospital to drive clinical improvement. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 92 (2), 146-52.
  
  Donabedian, A. 2003. An Intoduction to Quality Assurance in Health Care.
  Grol et al. 2013. Improving patient care. The implementation of change in health care.
  
  Haines, ST. et al. 2010. Protected professional practice evaluation: A continuous quality-improvement process. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 67 (22), 1933-1940.
  Hallock, A. B. (2019). A Case for Leadership Development in Nursing Practice. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 46(3), 325–328. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=137025803&site=ehost-live
  
  Hughes, R. 2008. Patient safety and quality. An evidence-based handbook for nurses.
  Kelly, P., Vottero, B.A., Christie-McAuliffe, C. 2014. Introduction to Quality and Safety Education for Nurses: Core Competencies.
  
  Lillrank, P. et al. 2001. Continuous improvement: Exploring alternative organizational designs. Total Quality Management 12 (1), 41-55.
  Mannix, J., Wilken, L., Daly, J. (2015). ‘Good ethics and moral standing': a qualitative study of aesthetic leadership in clinical nursing practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 24(11/12)pp 1603-1610
  
  Pun, KF. & Hui, I.K. Integrating the safety dimension into quality management systems: a process model. Total Quality Management 13 (3), 373-391.
  
  Selladurai, R. 2002. An organizational profitability, productivity, performance (PPP) model: going beyond TQM and BPR. Total Quality Management 13 (5), 613-619.
  
  Sureshchandar, G. S. 2001. A Conceptual model for total quality management in service organizations. Total Quality Management 12 (3), 343-363.
  
  World Health Organization 2002. A background for national quality policies in health systems. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/142066/E77983.pdf
  
  Wisniewski, M. 2001. Assessing customer satisfaction with local authority services using SERVQUAL. Total Quality Management 12(7), 995-1002.
  
  Zairi, M. 2002. Beyond TQM implementation: the new paradigm of TQM sustainability. Total Quality Management 13 (8).

  Learning methods

  lectures and group discussion and seminar

  Objects, timing and methods of assessment

  0-5

  Teaching language

  English

  Timing

  30.08.2021 - 31.12.2021

  Enrollment date range

  11.06.2021 - 29.08.2021

  • 5 credits

  Group(s)

  • SHV20HD-V
  • SHV20HH-Å
  • SHV20HH-V
  • SHV20HD-Å

  Teachers and responsibilities

  Rika Levy-Malmberg

  Responsible unit

  Faculty of Health and Welfare

  Degree Programme(s)

  Degree Programme in Social Services and Health Care

  Campus

  Åbo, Henriksgatan 7

  Share of online studies

  2 credits

  Assessment scale

  H-5

  Exam dates and retake possibilities

  3 writen assignments and forum discussion

  Student's schedule and workload

  1 sp= 27 hours

  Assessment criteria

  The student has not followed the instructions and their knowledge of the other students' work is missing. The student shows limited substantive knowledge, cannot be essential

  Assessment criteria – satisfactory (1-2)

  The student has followed the instructions and their knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential.

  Assessment criteria – good (3-4)

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

  Assessment criteria – excellent (5)

  The student has followed the instructions for the written work and shows that she has mastered the substance. They have read the other participants' written work and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar. The written work and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections and independent working methods)
  The student has followed the instructions for the written work and shows that she has mastered the substance. They have read the other participants' work and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar.

•   Research methods SHV16FU02-3008 30.08.2021-31.07.2024  10 credits  (SHV21HD-V, ...) +-
  Competence objectives of the study unit

  The student:
  Has advanced theoretical and practical knowledge in qualitative and quantitative research and development processes and methods
  Has acquired a scientific and ethical approach in research and development activities
  Can carry out a current work life-related development project

  Prerequisites

  No prerequisites

  Content of the study unit

  Qualitative research methods
  Quantitative research methods
  Seminars

  Assessment criteria

  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. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

  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)
  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

  ---

  Person(s) in charge

  Camilla Strandell-Laine

  Mode of delivery

  Face-to-face

  Learning material

  LITERATURE FOR THE QUALITATIVE PART OF THE COURSE
  
  Obligatory literature (suggestions below): student chooses a book which presents the chosen method (if available) and publications related to research integrity.
  
  General research method books:
  - Gerrish, K. & Lathlean, J. (2015). Research process in nursing (Seventh edition.). Wiley Blackwell. (e-bok)
  - Parahoo, K., 2006. Nursing Research. Principles, Process and Issues. Second Edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  - Holloway, I. (2017). Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare (4th ed.). Wiley Blackwell.
  - Gibbs, G. R. & Flick, U. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Second edition.). Sage.
  - Merriam, S. B. & Grenier, R. S. (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (Second edition.). Jossey-Bass.
  - Kyngäs, H., Mikkonen, K. & Kääriäinen, M. (2019). The application of content analysis in nursing science research. Springer International Publishing.
  - Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Fourth edition. International student edition.). SAGE.
  - Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
  - (2012). What is Qualitative Research? Bloomsbury Academic.
  - Leavy, P. (2014). The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
  
  Specific research methods:
  - Coughlan, M., Cronin, P. & Ryan, F. 2013. Doing a literature review in nursing, health and social care. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
  - King, N., Horrocks, C. & Brooks, J. (2019). Interviews in qualitative research (2nd edition.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
  - Brinkmann, S. (2013). Qualitative interviewing. Oxford University Press.
  - Lawson, H. A. (2015). Participatory action research (First edition.). Oxford University Press.
  - McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice (3rd edition.). Routledge.
  - Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., Lofland, L., Deegan, M. J., . . . Lather, P. (2007). Handbook of ethnography ([Uusintapainos].). SAGE Publications.
  - Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4. [updated] ed.). Sage Publications.
  
  Ethics:
  - Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK): https://www.tenk.fi/en
  - What are Qualitative Research Ethics? (2012). Bloomsbury Academic.¨
  - Love, K. (2012). Ethics in social research. Emerald.
  - Comstock, G. (2013). Research ethics: A philosophical guide to the responsible conduct of research. Cambridge University Press.

  Learning methods

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  QUALITATIVE METHODS:
  The qualitative part of the course is completely virtual and is available at Moodle.
  The course at Moodle is divided into 5 modules:
  
  Module 1: Introduction and a diagnostic test.
  
  Module 2: Data collection. Group working. In the group you choose each a data collection method in which you immerse yourself, do a small survey where you use the chosen method and present it to each other according to the instructions on Moodle. In addition, you give feedback to each other regarding the details according to the instructions on Moodle. It is optimal to have 3 people in the group. When the student starts the course, they enters the discussion forum in module two. The first one to enter starts a discussion thread, the following (1-2 students) answer it and thus form a group. The third or fourth who enters starts a new discussion and the following students answer it, etc.
  
  Module 3: Data-analysis. Individual assignment. A student choose a theme and form a research question. They search for 3 scientific articles and choose a qualitative analysis method. Student answers to their research question by using a content analysis and presents the analysis process and findings.
  
  Module 4: Ethics, data protection and validity. Home exam submitted via Moodle.
  
  Module 5: Review of a degree thesis. Student choose choose a higher UAS degree thesis within their own profiling in Theseus (https://www.theseus.fi/). NOTE the programs are slightly different in different UAS. Students read and assess the thesis according to instructions and documents found on Moodle.

  Objects, timing and methods of assessment

  QUALITATIVE METHODS
  
  Module 1 is assessed passed/failed. To pass this module, the student need to answer to the diagnostic test.
  Modules 2-5 are assessed using a scale 0-5.
  Module 2 (weighting 30%)
  - readiness to plan, structure, perform and analyse critically research
  - readiness to compare and critically analyse the objective of collecting and using data
  - readiness to combine theory, practice and reflection
  - readiness to document and logically and structurally present the tasks
  - readiness to peer review
  Module 3 (weighting 30%)
  - readiness to form a research question
  - readiness to search scientific articles
  - readiness to use a qualitative data analysis method
  - readiness to present an analysis process
  - readiness to to present findings of the analysis (written and visual presentation)
  Module 4 (weighting 20%)
  - knowledge of basic concepts
  - readiness to variedly clarify questions related to research ethics, data protection and validity using literature related to research methods
  Module 5 (weighting 20%)
  - readiness to analyse using literature related to research methods and review criteria
  - readiness to assess the practical novelty
  - readiness to summarize relevant data
  - critical and constructive reflection

  Teaching language

  Swedish

  Timing

  30.08.2021 - 31.07.2024

  Enrollment date range

  11.06.2021 - 12.09.2021

  • 10 credits

  Group(s)

  • SHV21HD-V
  • SHV21HD-Å

  Teachers and responsibilities

  Ann-Louise Glasberg, Ralf Lillbacka, Camilla Strandell-Laine, Emilia Kielo-Viljamaa

  Responsible unit

  Faculty of Health and Welfare

  Degree Programme(s)

  Degree Programme in Social Services and Health Care

  Campus

  Åbo, Henriksgatan 7

  Assessment scale

  H-5

  Alternative methods of attainment for implementation

  VAASA AND TURKU: QUALITATIVE METHODS
  
  Module 1: Diagnostic test (Moodle)
  Module 2: Written report (group assignment) as a PowerPoint form with recorded sound (instructions on Moodle) and peer review. A presentation should include: a description of the method, how and when to use the method, pros and cons of the method, description of how you used the method (how did you use the method, reflection about the strengths and challenges). Peer review is given to other students in the group according to the instructions on Moodle.
  Module 3: Individual assignment. Student analyses 3 scientific articles using a quantitative analysis method. Student presents their analysis process and findings.
  Module 4: Home exam submitted via Moodle
  Module 5: Individual analysis and review of a degree thesis based on your interest. (conducted according to the instructions on Moodle)

  Exam dates and retake possibilities

  QUALITATIVE METHODS
  The course qualitative research methods can be accomplished under the period 30.8.-31.12.2021. The module 1 should be done first and after that, the student is recommended to study the modules according to the order on the Moodle.

  Student's schedule and workload

  QUALITATIVE METHODS (5 ECTS = 135 h)
  Course introduction: (course info 2h + getting familiarized with the course) + diagnostic test pn Moodle (=examination) = 10 h
  Data collection: Students are working in groups of 3 people. Every student chooses a data collection method of which they study and use it in their reports according to the instructions on Moodle. Students record max 10 minutes video in which they present the method. The other group members review the group mates presentations using the review criteria on Moodle. (=examination) = 40 h
  Data analysis: Student choose a theme and forms a research question. They search 3 scientific articles and choose a qualitative analysis method. Student answers to their research question using content analysis and presents the analysis process and findings (=examination) = 40 h
  Ethics, data protection and validity: Home exam on Moodle (=examination) = 25 h
  Degree thesis: Student searches, reads and analyses one thesis (master's degree) and review it using the criteria found on Moodle and writes a report (=examination) = 20 h

  Content scheduling

  The course is divided into two parts: qualitative and quantitative
  Qualitative methods (5 ECTS) is accomplished during the autumn 2021. This part of the course is completely virtual and it can be found on Moodle.

  Assessment criteria

  QUALITATIVE METHODS
  Modules 2, 3 and 5:
  The text is fragmented and it does not answer to the questions.
  Literature related to research methods is not used.
  Reflections are missing.
  The technical forming has limitations.
  Module 4:
  Does not present the central concepts and the basic principles.
  Literature related to research methods is not used.

  Assessment criteria – satisfactory (1-2)

  QUALITATIVE METHODS
  Modules 2, 3 and 5:
  Questions to the answers are vague and narrow.
  Literature related to research methods is referred.
  Reflections presented are limited.
  The technical forming is satisfactory.
  Module 4:
  - Concepts and basic principles are referred.
  - Is based on basic literature related to research methods.

  Assessment criteria – good (3-4)

  QUALITATIVE METHODS
  Modules 2, 3 and 5:
  - Questions are being answered.
  - Literature related to research methods is applied.
  - The text is reflective and critical viewpoints can be found.
  - The technical forming is good.
  Module 4:
  - Understands and is able to clarify the concepts and the basic principles
  - Is based on literature related to research methods and the instructions of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity or international guidelines.

  Assessment criteria – excellent (5)

  QUALITATIVE METHODS
  Modules 2, 3 and 5:
  - Questions are being answered.
  - Literature related to research methods is applied.
  - The text is reflective and critical viewpoints can be found.
  - The technical forming is good.
  Module 4:
  - Understands and is able to clarify the concepts and the basic principles
  - Is based on literature related to research methods and the instructions of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity or international guidelines.

•   Research methods HCS21EB04-3001 30.08.2021-31.07.2023  10 credits  (HCS21F-Å, ...) +-
  Competence objectives of the study unit

  After completing the course, the student is able to:
  - Explain the basic concepts in research
  - Critically apply and evaluate different quantitative and qualitative research methodologies in various settings
  - Choose appropriate research methodologies for research problems to be solved in different healthcare and/or social service settings.
  - Interpret the research findings and evaluate the validity and reliability of the study
  - Understand, consider, apply and promote ethical approach in research and development activities
  - Independently carry out a work life-related development and/or research projects

  Prerequisites

  No prerequisites

  Content of the study unit

  - Qualitative and quantitative methodologies as well as mixed methods
  - Data collection
  - Data analysis and interpretation
  - Validity and reliability of the study
  - Research ethics

  Assessment criteria

  Assessment criteria – satisfactory (1-2)

  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 (3-4)

  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

  ---

  Person(s) in charge

  Camilla Strandell-Laine

  Mode of delivery

  Face-to-face

  Learning material

  LITERATURE FOR THE QUALITATIVE PART OF THE COURSE
  
  Obligatory literature (suggestions below): student chooses a book which presents the chosen method (if available) and publications related to research integrity.
  
  General research method books:
  - Gerrish, K. & Lathlean, J. (2015). Research process in nursing (Seventh edition.). Wiley Blackwell. (e-bok)
  - Parahoo, K., 2006. Nursing Research. Principles, Process and Issues. Second Edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  - Holloway, I. (2017). Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare (4th ed.). Wiley Blackwell.
  - Gibbs, G. R. & Flick, U. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Second edition.). Sage.
  - Merriam, S. B. & Grenier, R. S. (2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (Second edition.). Jossey-Bass.
  - Kyngäs, H., Mikkonen, K. & Kääriäinen, M. (2019). The application of content analysis in nursing science research. Springer International Publishing.
  - Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Fourth edition. International student edition.). SAGE.
  - Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
  - (2012). What is Qualitative Research? Bloomsbury Academic.
  - Leavy, P. (2014). The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
  
  Specific research methods:
  - Coughlan, M., Cronin, P. & Ryan, F. 2013. Doing a literature review in nursing, health and social care. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
  - King, N., Horrocks, C. & Brooks, J. (2019). Interviews in qualitative research (2nd edition.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
  - Brinkmann, S. (2013). Qualitative interviewing. Oxford University Press.
  - Lawson, H. A. (2015). Participatory action research (First edition.). Oxford University Press.
  - McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice (3rd edition.). Routledge.
  - Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., Lofland, L., Deegan, M. J., . . . Lather, P. (2007). Handbook of ethnography ([Uusintapainos].). SAGE Publications.
  - Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4. [updated] ed.). Sage Publications.
  
  Ethics:
  - Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK): https://www.tenk.fi/en
  - What are Qualitative Research Ethics? (2012). Bloomsbury Academic.¨
  - Love, K. (2012). Ethics in social research. Emerald.
  - Comstock, G. (2013). Research ethics: A philosophical guide to the responsible conduct of research. Cambridge University Press.

  Learning methods

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  QUALITATIVE METHODS:
  The qualitative part of the course is completely virtual and is available at Moodle.
  The course at Moodle is divided into 5 modules:
  
  Module 1: Introduction and a diagnostic test.
  
  Module 2: Data collection. Group working. In the group you choose each a data collection method in which you immerse yourself, do a small survey where you use the chosen method and present it to each other according to the instructions on Moodle. In addition, you give feedback to each other regarding the details according to the instructions on Moodle. It is optimal to have 3 people in the group. When the student starts the course, they enters the discussion forum in module two. The first one to enter starts a discussion thread, the following (1-2 students) answer it and thus form a group. The third or fourth who enters starts a new discussion and the following students answer it, etc.
  
  Module 3: Data-analysis. Individual assignment. A student choose a theme and form a research question. They search for 3 scientific articles and choose a qualitative analysis method. Student answers to their research question by using a content analysis and presents the analysis process and findings.
  
  Module 4: Ethics, data protection and validity. Home exam submitted via Moodle.
  
  Module 5: Review of a degree thesis. Student choose choose a higher UAS degree thesis within their own profiling in Theseus (https://www.theseus.fi/). NOTE the programs are slightly different in different UAS. Students read and assess the thesis according to instructions and documents found on Moodle.

  Objects, timing and methods of assessment

  QUALITATIVE METHODS
  
  Module 1 is assessed passed/failed. To pass this module, the student need to answer to the diagnostic test.
  Modules 2-5 are assessed using a scale 0-5.
  Module 2 (weighting 30%)
  - readiness to plan, structure, perform and analyse critically research
  - readiness to compare and critically analyse the objective of collecting and using data
  - readiness to combine theory, practice and reflection
  - readiness to document and logically and structurally present the tasks
  - readiness to peer review
  Module 3 (weighting 30%)
  - readiness to form a research question
  - readiness to search scientific articles
  - readiness to use a qualitative data analysis method
  - readiness to present an analysis process
  - readiness to to present findings of the analysis (written and visual presentation)
  Module 4 (weighting 20%)
  - knowledge of basic concepts
  - readiness to variedly clarify questions related to research ethics, data protection and validity using literature related to research methods
  Module 5 (weighting 20%)
  - readiness to analyse using literature related to research methods and review criteria
  - readiness to assess the practical novelty
  - readiness to summarize relevant data
  - critical and constructive reflection

  Teaching language

  English

  Timing

  30.08.2021 - 31.07.2023

  Enrollment date range

  11.06.2021 - 29.08.2021

  • 10 credits

  Group(s)

  • HCS21F-Å
  • HCS21P-Å

  Teachers and responsibilities

  Ralf Lillbacka, Camilla Strandell-Laine

  Responsible unit

  Faculty of Health and Welfare

  Degree Programme(s)

  Degree Programme in Social Services and Health Care

  Campus

  Åbo, Henriksgatan 7

  Assessment scale

  H-5

  Alternative methods of attainment for implementation

  VAASA AND TURKU: QUALITATIVE METHODS
  
  Module 1: Diagnostic test (Moodle)
  Module 2: Written report (group assignment) as a PowerPoint form with recorded sound (instructions on Moodle) and peer review. A presentation should include: a description of the method, how and when to use the method, pros and cons of the method, description of how you used the method (how did you use the method, reflection about the strengths and challenges). Peer review is given to other students in the group according to the instructions on Moodle.
  Module 3: Individual assignment. Student analyses 3 scientific articles using a quantitative analysis method. Student presents their analysis process and findings.
  Module 4: Home exam submitted via Moodle
  Module 5: Individual analysis and review of a degree thesis based on your interest. (conducted according to the instructions on Moodle)

  Exam dates and retake possibilities

  QUALITATIVE METHODS
  The course qualitative research methods can be accomplished under the period 30.8.-31.12.2021. The module 1 should be done first and after that, the student is recommended to study the modules according to the order on the Moodle.

  Student's schedule and workload

  QUALITATIVE METHODS (5 ECTS = 135 h)
  Course introduction: (course info 2h + getting familiarized with the course) + diagnostic test pn Moodle (=examination) = 10 h
  Data collection: Students are working in groups of 3 people. Every student chooses a data collection method of which they study and use it in their reports according to the instructions on Moodle. Students record max 10 minutes video in which they present the method. The other group members review the group mates presentations using the review criteria on Moodle. (=examination) = 40 h
  Data analysis: Student choose a theme and forms a research question. They search 3 scientific articles and choose a qualitative analysis method. Student answers to their research question using content analysis and presents the analysis process and findings (=examination) = 40 h
  Ethics, data protection and validity: Home exam on Moodle (=examination) = 25 h
  Degree thesis: Student searches, reads and analyses one thesis (master's degree) and review it using the criteria found on Moodle and writes a report (=examination) = 20 h

  Content scheduling

  The course is divided into two parts: qualitative and quantitative
  Qualitative methods (5 ECTS) is accomplished during the autumn 2021. This part of the course is completely virtual and it can be found on Moodle.

  Assessment criteria

  QUALITATIVE METHODS
  Modules 2, 3 and 5:
  The text is fragmented and it does not answer to the questions.
  Literature related to research methods is not used.
  Reflections are missing.
  The technical forming has limitations.
  Module 4:
  Does not present the central concepts and the basic principles.
  Literature related to research methods is not used.

  Assessment criteria – satisfactory (1-2)

  QUALITATIVE METHODS
  Modules 2, 3 and 5:
  Questions to the answers are vague and narrow.
  Literature related to research methods is referred.
  Reflections presented are limited.
  The technical forming is satisfactory.
  Module 4:
  - Concepts and basic principles are referred.
  - Is based on basic literature related to research methods.

  Assessment criteria – good (3-4)

  QUALITATIVE METHODS
  Modules 2, 3 and 5:
  - Questions are being answered.
  - Literature related to research methods is applied.
  - The text is reflective and critical viewpoints can be found.
  - The technical forming is good.
  Module 4:
  - Understands and is able to clarify the concepts and the basic principles
  - Is based on literature related to research methods and the instructions of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity or international guidelines.

  Assessment criteria – excellent (5)

  QUALITATIVE METHODS:
  Modules 2, 3 and 5:
  - Questions are being answered comprehensively and extensively.
  - Literature related to research methods is analysed and applied.
  - The reflection is scientific and analytic.
  - The technical forming is excellent.
  Module 4:
  - Shows readiness to see a connection and makes own conclusions.
  - Uses the literature related to research ethics and the instructions of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity or international guidelines extensively.

•   The Nordic model of welfare HCS21GL03-3001 30.08.2021-31.12.2021  5 credits  (HCS21F-Å, ...) +-
  Competence objectives of the study unit

  After completing the course, the student is able to:
  - Explain the politics of welfare, welfare services and welfare provision of the Nordic Model of Welfare
  - Analyze and evaluate the outcome of welfare policy in the Nordic welfare states, as well as in a comparative EU and a global setting
  - Recognize and analyze the challenges of the Nordic welfare model today

  Prerequisites

  No prerequisites

  Content of the study unit

  - Typologies of welfare state regimes
  - Politics of welfare in the Nordic countries
  - The context and target areas of welfare services in the Nordic model of welfare
  - Comparative analysis of welfare and well-being
  - Changes and challenges to the Nordic welfare model today

  Assessment criteria

  Assessment criteria – satisfactory (1-2)

  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 (3-4)

  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

  ---

  Person(s) in charge

  Camilla Strandell-Laine

  Mode of delivery

  Face-to-face

  Learning material

  To be introduced during the introductory lecture.

  Learning methods

  Online lectures / literature (self studies) / assignments / seminars

  Teaching language

  English

  Timing

  30.08.2021 - 31.12.2021

  Enrollment date range

  11.06.2021 - 04.09.2021

  • 5 credits

  Group(s)

  • HCS21F-Å
  • HCS21P-Å

  Teachers and responsibilities

  Susanne Jungerstam

  Responsible unit

  Faculty of Health and Welfare

  Degree Programme(s)

  Degree Programme in Social Services and Health Care

  Campus

  Åbo, Henriksgatan 7

  Assessment scale

  H-5

  Exam dates and retake possibilities

  To be introduced during the introductory lecture.

  Student's schedule and workload

  5 sp / ects equals a total of approximately 135 hours of work.

Academic year 2022 - 2023

There is no implementations attached to this degree programme.