Skip to main content

Developing Quality Management and Safety Culture (5 cr)

Code: SHV24RS01-3001

General information


Enrollment

15.06.2024 - 16.09.2024

Timing

01.01.2025 - 31.05.2025

Number of ECTS credits allocated

5 op

Mode of delivery

Contact teaching

Unit

Faculty of Health and Welfare

Campus

Åbo, Henriksgatan 7

Teaching languages

  • English

Degree programmes

  • Degree Programme in Social Services and Health Care

Teachers

  • Katarina Vironen

Teacher in charge

Katarina Vironen

Groups

  • SHV24H-Å
    Social- och hälsovård, h24, högre yh, Åbo
  • SHV24H-V
    Social- och hälsovård, h24, Vasa

Objective

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

Content

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

Materials

According to the lecturer's instructions

Teaching methods

Virtual studies

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

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

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

Assessment criteria, good (3)

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

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

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

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

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

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

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

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

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

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

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

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

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

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

Qualifications

No prerequisites