Monitoring review of performance in mitigating key risks identified in the NMC Quality Assurance framework for nursing and midwifery education

2015-16 Monitoring review of performance in mitigating key risks identified in the NMC Quality Assurance framework for nursing and midwifery education Programme provider Programmes monitored Glasgow Caledonian University Registered Nurse - Learning Disabilities; Registered Nurse - Mental Health Date of monitoring event 12-14 Apr 2016 Managing Reviewer Lay Reviewer Registrant Reviewer(s) Placement partner visits undertaken during the review Peter McAndrew Kate Taylor Niall McLaughlin, Bridget Crofts Practice visits to mental health placements: Leverndale Hospital Mother and Baby Unit/Ward 3 Acute Inpatient/Banff Ward Older Persons Inpatient Brand Street Resource Centre Gartnavel Royal Hospital Henderson House/Kershaw Inpatient Addiction Unit/Stobhill Older Adult Inpatient Unit East CAMHS Team Barlinnie Prison Practice visits to learning disabilities placements: Beckford Street Community Learning Disabilities Team, Hamilton Community Learning Disabilities Team, Coatbridge and Airdrie Gartnavel Royal Hospital Claythorne Acute Inpatient Unit South Sector Glasgow Learning Disability Services Learning Disability Liaison Team 317249/Sep 2016 Page 1 of 41

William Quarier Scottish Epilepsy Centre Ailsa Hospital Date of Report 25 Apr 2016 Arrol Park Resource Centre, Assessment and Treatment Team Community Learning Disability Team South Community Learning Disability Team North Community Learning Disability Team East Introduction to NMC QA framework The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) The NMC exists to protect the public. We do this by ensuring that only those who meet our requirements are allowed to practise as a nurse or midwife in the UK. We take action if concerns are raised about whether a nurse or midwife is fit to practise. Standards for pre-registration education We set standards and competencies for nursing and midwifery education that must be met by students prior to entering the register. Providers of higher education and training can apply to deliver programmes that enable students to meet these standards. The NMC approves programmes when it judges that the relevant standards have been met. We can withhold or withdraw approval from programmes when standards are not met. Quality assurance (QA) and how standards are met The quality assurance (QA) of education differs significantly from any system regulator inspection. As set out in the NMC QA framework, which was updated in 2015, approved education institutions (AEIs) are expected to report risks to the NMC. Review is the process by which the NMC ensures that AEIs continue to meet our education standards. Our risk based approach increases the focus on aspects of education provision where risk is known or anticipated, particularly in practice placement settings. It promotes selfreporting of risks by AEIs and it engages nurses, midwives, students, service users, carers and educators. Our role is to ensure that pre-registration education programmes provide students with the opportunity to meet the standards needed to join our register. We also ensure that programmes for nurses and midwives already registered with us meet standards associated with particular roles and functions. The NMC may conduct an extraordinary review in response to concerns identified regarding nursing or midwifery education in both the AEI and its placement partners. The published QA methodology requires that QA reviewers (who are always independent to the NMC) should make judgments based on evidence provided to them about the quality and effectiveness of the AEI and placement partners in meeting the 317249/Sep 2016 Page 2 of 41

education standards. QA reviewers will grade the level of risk control on the following basis: Met: Effective risk controls are in place across the AEI: The AEI and its placement partners have all the necessary controls in place to safely control risks to ensure programme providers, placement partners, mentors and sign-off mentors achieve all stated standards. Appropriate risk control systems are in place without need for specific improvements. Requires improvement to strengthen the risk control: The AEI and its placement partners have all the necessary controls in place to safely control risks to ensure programme providers, placement partners, mentors and sign-off mentors achieve stated standards. However, improvements are required to address specific weaknesses in AEI s and its placement partners risk control processes to enhance assurance for public protection. Not met: The AEI does not have all the necessary controls in place to safely control risks to enable it, placement partners, mentors and sign-off mentors to achieve the standards. Risk control systems and processes are weak; significant and urgent improvements are required in order that public protection can be assured. It is important to note that the grade awarded for each key risk will be determined by the lowest level of control in any component risk indicator. The grade does not reflect a balance of achievement across a key risk. When a standard is not met an action plan must be formally agreed with the AEI directly and, when necessary, should include the relevant placement partner. The action plan must be delivered against an agreed timeline. 317249/Sep 2016 Page 3 of 41

Quality Assurance Fitness for Practice Practice Learning Admissions & Progression Resources Summary of findings against key risks 1.1 Programme 1.1.1 Registrant teachers have experience / providers have qualifications commensurate with role. inadequate resources to deliver approved programmes to the standards required by the NMC 1.2 Inadequate resources available in practice settings to enable students to achieve learning outcomes 2.1 Inadequate safeguards are in place to prevent unsuitable students from entering and progressing to qualification 3.1 Inadequate governance of and in practice learning 3.2 Programme providers fail to provide learning opportunities of suitable quality for students 3.3 Assurance and confirmation of student achievement is unreliable or invalid 4.1 Approved programmes fail to address all required learning outcomes in accordance with NMC standards 4.2 Audited practice placements fail to address all required learning outcomes in accordance with NMC standards 5.1 Programme providers' internal QA systems fail to provide assurance against NMC standards 1.2.1 Sufficient appropriately qualified mentors / sign-off mentors / practice teachers available to support numbers of students 2.1.1 Admission processes follow NMC requirements 3.1.1 Evidence of effective partnerships between education and service providers at all levels, including partnerships with multiple education institutions who use the same practice placement locations 3.2.1 Practitioners and service users and carers are involved in programme development and delivery 3.3.1 Evidence that mentors, sign-off mentors, practice teachers are properly prepared for their role in assessing practice 4.1.1 Documentary evidence to support students achievement of all NMC learning outcomes, competencies and proficiencies at progression points and or entry to the register and for all programmes that the NMC sets standards for 4.2.1 Documentary evidence to support students achievement of all NMC practice learning outcomes, competencies and proficiencies at progression points and upon entry to the register and for all programmes that the NMC sets standards for 5.1.1 Student feedback and evaluation / programme evaluation and improvement systems address weakness and enhance delivery 2.1.2 Programme providers procedures address issues of poor performance in both theory and practice 3.2.2 Academic staff support students in practice placement settings 2.1.3 Programme providers procedures are implemented by practice placement providers in addressing issues of poor performance in practice 3.3.2 Mentors, sign-off 3.3.3 Records of mentors and practice mentors / practice teachers are able to teachers are attend annual updates accurate and up to sufficient to meet date requirements for triennial review and understand the process they have engaged with 5.1.2 Concerns and complaints raised in practice learning settings are appropriately dealt with and communicated to relevant partners Standard Met Requires Improvement Standard Not met 2.1.4 Systems for the accreditation of prior learning and achievement are robust and supported by verifiable evidence, mapped against NMC outcomes and standards of proficiency 317249/Sep 2016 Page 4 of 41

Introduction Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU) is one of the largest universities in Scotland offering undergraduate, postgraduate and part-time courses to over 17,000 students and employing 1,500 members of staff. The Glasgow campus is self-contained and situated in the heart of the city. The campus contains the award winning Saltire Centre which is the home to the university library and provides a high quality support hub for student learning. The school of health and life sciences was formed in 2011 and is one of three academic schools in GCU bringing together the departments of life sciences, psychology, social work and allied health sciences and nursing and community health. The department of nursing and community health is one of the largest providers of preregistration nursing education in Scotland. The pre-registration nursing programme with fields in adult, child, mental health and learning disabilities nursing was approved by the NMC in June 2015. The monitoring review focuses on the provision of the three year and four year preregistration nursing programme mental health nursing and learning disabilities nursing fields. The monitoring visit took place over three days and involved visits to practice placements to meet a range of stakeholders. The practice placement visits selected cover a wide geographical area and provided the opportunity to visit a wide selection of hospital and community based placement experiences. There was scrutiny of all the placement management arrangements that support the pre-registration nursing programme and especially the procedures for undertaking educational audits at the newly commissioned Queen Elizabeth University Hospital and the Royal Hospital for Children Glasgow. Our findings demonstrate that one of the key risk themes admissions and progression is not met. The university is required to implement an action plan to ensure that the risks are controlled and meet the NMC standards and that public protection is assured. 22 August 2016 The university produced an action plan to address the unmet risk theme. The action plan has been fully implemented and the identified risks are now controlled. Resources met Introduction to Glasgow Caledonian University s programmes Summary of public protection context and findings We conclude that the university has adequate appropriately qualified academic staff to deliver the pre-registration nursing (mental health and learning disabilities) programme to meet NMC standards. There is an all Scotland programme model for the delivery of the pre-registration nursing learning disabilities field which presents significant geographical challenges. We found that the teaching and learning support needs of student nurses studying the learning disabilities field are currently being met. However due to the challenges involved we recommend that to maintain the quality of the programme and further 317249/Sep 2016 Page 5 of 41

expand the model the resource allocation for lecturers would benefit from being reviewed. There are sufficient appropriately qualified mentors and sign-off mentors available to support the number of students studying the pre-registration nursing (mental health and learning disabilities) programme. Admission and progression not met We conclude that the admission process does not meet the NMC Standards for preregistration nursing education (2010) as face to face engagement with students, the involvement of representatives from practice placement providers and service users and carers is not included until after the selection decision and a conditional offer is made (Standard three: requirement 3.6 and 3.7 and guidance 3.7a apply). 22 August 2016. Revised programme documentation was submitted by the university which included a requirement for a face to face interview. The key risk is now met. The protection of vulnerable groups (PVG) check and occupational health clearance are completed before a student can enter the programme. These compulsory procedures are undertaken in order to protect the public. We found that progression procedures are robust and effectively implemented to ensure that students progressing on the programme meet NMC standards and requirements which are fundamental to protection of the public. Procedures to address issues of poor performance in both theory and practice are well understood and implemented effectively in the programme fields being monitored. We found that procedures and practices in relation to fitness to practise are comprehensive, robust and rigorous and meet the requirements of the NMC and to protect the public. We found that policies and procedures for the accreditation/recognition of prior learning (APL/RPL) are robust and ensure that NMC learning outcomes and hours of theory and practice are mapped within the accreditation process which is scrutinised by the external examiners and ratified by the examination board. Practice learning - met We found that partnership working is strong and effective at both strategic and operational levels with service providers and associated education providers. Particular scrutiny was undertaken during the monitoring visit to gain assurance that the educational audit process was undertaken in a timely manner to approve placements before students were moved into the new placement areas provided at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital and the Royal Hospital for Children in May and June 2015. We are assured that no students were placed in an unaudited placement and students practice experience was only subject to minor disruption with no practice experience time being lost. During the period of the move to the new hospitals practice education facilitators (PEFs) and academic link lecturers increased their presence in the new practice settings to support the student learning experience. Students evaluations that covered this period of practice illustrate that the practice learning experiences were positive and no major issues were identified that related to the change in placement provision. 317249/Sep 2016 Page 6 of 41

We found that the school has an effective process that can respond appropriately to adverse quality inspectorate reports which indicate that placement areas used for students may not be appropriate. We confirmed that action would be taken to protect the students learning through the provision of additional support, collaborative work with the placement provider or moving the students to another placement area. These measures meet the requirement to protect students learning and ensure that students are not subjected to poor educational experiences and/or patient care practices. We found that service users and carers are engaged in aspects of programme development and delivery. Engagement in the mental health nursing field is commendable and lecturers work in partnership with service users to create high quality simulated learning experiences with excellent feedback on student performance. We conclude that academic staff support students in practice placement settings, especially when additional support is required. In some practice placements academic staff visibility is low and would benefit from being reviewed. We conclude that there is considerable investment in the preparation and support of mentors and the completion of mentor annual updates is robust. The mentor registers provide an up to date and accurate record. All mentors are appropriately prepared for their role of supporting and assessing students and this contributes towards the protection of the public. Fitness for practice - met We conclude from our findings that programme learning strategies, experience and support in practice placements enable students to meet the pre-registration nursing programme and NMC competencies. We found that students are highly motivated and they report that they feel competent to practise at the end of their programme. Mentors and employers describe students completing the pre-registration nursing (mental health and learning disabilities) programme as fit for practice and that most are employed locally. Quality assurance - met Our findings conclude that overall there are effective quality assurance processes in place to manage risks, address areas for development and enhance the delivery of the pre-registration nursing (mental health and learning disabilities) programme. We found that there are effective procedures to enable students to raise complaints and concerns and that there is clear evidence that they are appropriately supported when they do raise concerns. Summary of areas that require improvement The selection process must be revised so that it provides an opportunity for face to face engagement between applicants and selectors and representatives from practice learning providers and service users and carers are included. Summary of areas for future monitoring Sufficient academic staff to support the pre-registration nursing learning 317249/Sep 2016 Page 7 of 41

disabilities field. The selection process involves a face to face component and the inclusion of clinical staff and service users and carers. Education audit process in the pre-registration nursing learning disabilities field. Service user and carer engagement in programme development and delivery. Academic staff visibility in practice settings. Mentors and sign-off mentors awareness of the requirements of triennial review. Summary of notable practice Resources None identified Admissions and Progression None identified Practice Learning None identified Fitness for Practice None identified Quality Assurance None identified Summary of feedback from groups involved in the review Academic team Academic staff on the programme teams told us that they have been fully involved in the development of the pre-registration nursing programme. They are enthusiastic and committed to their roles. They told us that they are highly motivated towards their own professional and personal development and were able to cite examples of ongoing scholarly and clinical activity to support their roles. They confirmed that they have sufficient resources to deliver the programme to a high quality. Mentors/sign-off mentors/practice teachers and employers and education commissioners Mentors and sign-off mentors showed real enthusiasm for their role in supporting students studying the pre-registration nursing programme. They told us that there are sufficient mentors and sign-off mentors to support the student numbers. They told us that they are well-prepared and supported for their role and that they are able to spend at least 40 percent of the time supporting students in placement. They confirmed that students have supernumerary status. PEFs told us that they maintain the mentor registers and ensure that there is adequate 317249/Sep 2016 Page 8 of 41

and appropriate training to support mentors and sign-off mentors to meet NMC standards. Sign-off mentors were generally favourable about the documentation in supporting assessment outcomes. Nurse managers and other senior staff told us that students are fit for employment on completing the pre-registration nursing programme. Students Students are enthusiastic about their academic study and their practice placements. They feel well supported in all areas and feel safe and confident in raising any concerns. Students told us that they have good access to their academic advisors and always receive a prompt reply to their requests and questions. They told us that the learning experiences in university and in practice placements enable them to achieve the programme requirements. Students who had undertaken their international placement in Malawi told us that there are huge benefits of this placement and they praised the academic advisor and the programme team for arranging the placement. Students told us that they are generally supportive of the practice assessment documentation. Service users and carers Service users and carers told us that they feel valued by the university for their contribution to the students education. They told us that they are involved in many aspects of teaching and learning. They told us that they feel well supported by the university academic staff and receive excellent feedback from students about their input. Service users and carers in placement areas told us that they are very positive about their involvement with students and about the experiences that students are receiving. Relevant issues from external quality assurance reports To prepare for the monitoring event a number of quality reports undertaken by Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS) were scrutinised. Most of the relevant reports were undertaken by the Healthcare Environment Inspectorate (HEI) which was established in April 2009 and which carries out at least 30 inspections across NHS Scotland, most of which are unannounced. Most of the inspections are to acute hospitals and focus on issues around infection control and the maintenance of the healthcare environment. The following reports relate to associated placement providers for the pre-registration nursing programme provided by GCU. HIS Healthcare Environment Inspectorate - unannounced inspection report - University Hospital Crosshouse NHS Ayrshire and Arran, 28 29 October and 6 November 2014. HEI reported concerns with the standard of cleanliness of patient equipment in the accident and emergency department and stated that staff need to be clear on the correct product and dilution ratios for the decontamination of blood on patient equipment (6). 317249/Sep 2016 Page 9 of 41

HIS Healthcare Environment Inspectorate unannounced follow-up inspection report - Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary NHS Dumfries and Galloway, 24 25 June 2014. NHS Dumfries and Galloway must ensure that all mattresses in use are clean and fit for purpose. This will minimise the risk of cross-contamination from these items of equipment to patients (7). HIS Healthcare Environment Inspectorate, unannounced inspection report - Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary NHS Dumfries and Galloway, 11 12 August 2015. NHS Dumfries and Galloway must: comply with the guidance on personal protective equipment in the Health Protection Scotland national infection prevention and control manual for NHS Scotland (2015); develop a water safety plan and implement documented organisational management arrangements for Pseudomonas aeruginosa; ensure a robust process is in place for decontaminating patient care equipment before it is sent from the ward to medical physics, and from medical physics back to the ward or library system; and, that all patient care equipment in the maternity ward, and the environment in which it is stored, is safe and clean (8). HIS Healthcare Environment Inspectorate, unannounced inspection report - Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary NHS Dumfries and Galloway, 15 16 January and 22 January 2014. NHS Dumfries and Galloway must: ensure that all staff are aware of the procedure for the management of blood spillages and the cleaning of contaminated patient equipment; ensure compliance with local policy regarding sharps management, as reflected in chapter one of the Standard Infection Control Precautions (SICPs) manual; ensure compliance with the use of colour-coded aprons in the intensive care unit (ICU); ensure that local policy for glove use and selection gives the same level of protection for staff against potential infection control risks as national policy; ensure that all hand hygiene products available for use within ICU are suitable and fit for purpose in consultation with the infection control team; ensure that ICU is cleaned in line with the requirements of NHS Scotland National Cleaning Services specification; ensure that staff in ICU are aware of their responsibilities for controlling pseudomonas aeruginosa; and, ensure that staff implement SICPs for linen management in the neonatal unit (9). HIS Healthcare Environment Inspectorate, unannounced inspection report - Gartnavel General Hospital NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, 3 4 November 2015. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde must put in place a reliable system to ensure patient transport trolleys and chairs are clean for patient use (10). HIS - improvement action plan - NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Gartnavel General Hospital, Healthcare associated infection inspection, inspection date: 3-4 November 2015. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde must put in place a reliable system to ensure patient transport trolleys and chairs are clean for patient use (11). HIS - improvement action plan - NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde - Gartnavel General Hospital. Healthcare associated infection theatre inspection, inspection date: 3-4 November 2015. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde must: ensure that all waste is disposed of in 317249/Sep 2016 Page 10 of 41

accordance with Health Facilities Scotland s Scottish health technical note three NHS Scotland waste management guidance part A (2015) and that all staff involved in the management of waste are aware of their responsibilities; ensure that theatre footwear is decontaminated in line with Health Protection Scotland s national infection prevention and control manual (2015) and is stored clean and ready for use; and, ensure that positioning pieces used within the theatre department are clean and free from damage (12). HIS Healthcare Environment Inspectorate - unannounced inspection report - Glasgow Royal Infirmary NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, 7 8 October and 15 October 2014. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde must: ensure that audit activity in the accident and emergency department provides assurance that infection control standards are being achieved and maintained. Specific information is included in the report to address the infection control standards (13). HIS Healthcare Environment Inspectorate - unannounced follow-up inspection report - Glasgow Royal Infirmary NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, 24 25 February 2015. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde produced a detailed improvement action plan. The NHS board has met all eight requirements made at the previous inspection in October 2014 (14). HIS Healthcare Environment Inspectorate, unannounced inspection report - Stobhill Hospital NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, 21 22 October 2015. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde must: ensure it evaluates the uptake of infection control training and responds to unmet infection prevention and control education needs; ensure a systematic programme of audits is performed to monitor compliance with standard infection control precautions, assess compliance with Health Protection Scotland s national infection prevention and control manual for NHS Scotland (2015) and provide assurance to the organisation; ensure that when an agreed audit programme is not undertaken, this is communicated through the organisation s risk reporting system; and, ensure it provides patient equipment that can be effectively cleaned and is safe for use (15). HIS Healthcare Environment Inspectorate - unannounced inspection report - Western Infirmary NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, 5 August 2013. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde must: ensure that all staff groups are implementing standard infection control precautions when disposing and handling sharps. This will ensure that staff close temporary closure mechanisms on all sharps bins; provide a timescale for when the legionella policy will be approved and implemented; demonstrate compliance with the requirements of CEL 08 (2013) and the Health Protection Scotland and NHS National Services Scotland joint document: Guidance for neonatal units (NNUs) (levels one, two and three), adult and paediatric ICUs in Scotland to minimise the risk of pseudomonas aeruginosa infection from water (2013); ensure that all ward based staff follow the isolation policy and that any deviation is clearly documented in patients notes; and, ensure that peripheral vascular catheter (PVC) documentation is consistently completed in line with local policy (16). HIS Healthcare Environment Inspectorate - unannounced inspection report - Wishaw General Hospital NHS Lanarkshire, 11 12 and 26 November 2014. 317249/Sep 2016 Page 11 of 41

NHS Lanarkshire must; ensure that where a PVC is in place, staff adhere to local policy and complete the accompanying care bundle documentation; ensure that all patient equipment is clean and ready for use; and, ensure that hospital-acquired infections (HAI) information is effectively disseminated to patients, relatives and carers (17). HIS inspection report: Independent Healthcare - Carrick Glen Hospital, BMI Healthcare Ltd, Ayr, 20 21 January 2016 (18). HIS - Queen Elizabeth University Hospital - Older people in acute hospitals unannounced inspection, inspection dates, 7-11 September 2015 (19). Meeting to discuss clinical governance/hisadverse reports 12 April 2016 In response to HIS quality inspection adverse outcomes, a meeting was held with senior education managers and PEFs to assess the joint action taken to protect students learning in placement areas within services identified in these reports. Senior academic staff confirmed that none of the HIS reports identified presented a risk to effective student learning. The arising issues had been discussed through the collaborative arrangements that are in place between the school and the health boards. Senior service managers confirmed that these relationships are very good and that all adverse issues would be discussed and appropriate collaborative action agreed. The majority of the outcomes of the reports are related to infection control and the maintenance of a good healthcare environment which the school confirmed would be covered in skills workshops and simulation learning undertaken by students. The school informed us that issues arising from HIS reports are standing items at the practice advisory group attended by senior staff from the school and the associated health boards. The school confirmed that they had not moved students from any placement area for the last six years. Previous to this, issues were raised by students and when collaboratively investigated the students concerned were moved from a placement area (72). We concluded that the school has effective processes in place that can respond appropriately to adverse quality inspectorate reports when they indicate that placement areas where students are allocated may not be appropriate. Although this has not occurred in the recent past, discussions held at the monitoring event confirmed that action would be taken to protect the students learning through the provision of additional support, collaborative work with the placement provider or moving the students to another placement area. These measures ensure that student learning is protected and that students are not subjected to either poor education or patient care practices (72). Follow up on recommendations from approval events within the last year NMC programme approval report, GCU - registered nurse - adult/child/mental health/learning disabilities fields, BSc/BSc (Hons) Nursing, 6 May 2015 (4). Recommendations included: Discuss and clarify, with senior clinical managers/placement providers, the apparent differences in perceptions on the nature of the degree entry requirements for the MSc nursing (pre-registration). Further work should be undertaken to ensure that feedback from service users 317249/Sep 2016 Page 12 of 41

and carers is incorporated into the development of the OAR. Endeavour to involve service users and carers in the recruitment process. Amend the programme submission documentation to enhance the transparency of the ways in which internationalisation and the current Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) enhancement themes (transition) are embedded in the curriculum (university requirement only). The progress made in achieving the recommendations was discussed at the initial meeting on the 31 March 2016 and during the monitoring event (4, 67). The recommendation made for service users and carers to be involved in the recruitment and selection process will be addressed in the action plan implemented as a result of the not met outcome for key risk 2.1.1. Some development work has taken place with mentors and students to ensure that feedback from service users and carers is incorporated into the development of the OAR. We have seen good evidence that students are reflecting on service user and carer feedback within the OAR and suggest that consideration is given to widen opportunities for service users and carers to give feedback. Specific issues to follow up from self-report The following key issues are identified for 2015-2016 annual monitoring: Heart of campus - continue to evaluate the impact of the campus development on room availability. During the monitoring visit we found that students did not raise any negative issues about room availability (80 96). Values based recruitment tool is being piloted within the pre-registration nursing programme - to evaluate the usefulness of this tool. We found that the pilot of the values based recruitment tool was successful and its use has now been included as part of the selection procedures (79). Sign-off mentor protected time - to monitor through PEFs any sign-off mentors who are not getting protected time and escalate this through service managers and the directors of nursing (5). During the monitoring visit sign-off mentors told us that they are able to access protected time (80 96). Findings against key risks Key risk 1 Resources 1.1 Programme providers have inadequate resources to deliver approved programmes to the standards required by the NMC 317249/Sep 2016 Page 13 of 41

1.2 Inadequate resources available in practice settings to enable students to achieve learning outcomes Risk indicator 1.1.1 - registrant teachers have experience / qualifications commensurate with role. What we found before the event There is a policy for nurse and midwife lecturers to achieve recordable teaching status with the NMC and to record their qualification (20). NMC registration renewal dates for academic staff are held on a database within the school and monitored and updated on a regular basis by searching the NMC register to ensure that staff have renewed their registration (20). GCU ensures that nurse teachers are given time to link to practice, to undertake a teaching qualification, and to engage in scholarly activity (4). GCU ensures that nurse teachers meet the relevant requirements including being up to date; this includes being given time to link to practice, to undertake a teaching qualification and to engage in scholarly activity (4). What we found at the event We found that all programme leaders, field leaders and lecturers supporting the preregistration programme have an active registration and many have a recorded teaching qualification with the NMC. Programme leaders act with due regard. The academic staff profile demonstrates strong evidence of excellent staff development. Academic staff are enthusiastic and committed to their roles. The school s governance procedures are robust and well administrated and ensure that all midwifery and nursing lecturers are registered with the NMC and have the relevant recorded teacher qualification or are working towards its achievement (39-40, 42, 66, 71). Generally there is sufficient academic staff dedicated to programme delivery and we were shown examples of the university s workforce planning tool that is used to ensure that the programme is adequately staffed. This demonstrates evidence that time is allocated to placement visits, the academic advisor role, supporting practice modules, community engagement, outreach work and dedicated time for staff development (67 70, 99). There is an all Scotland programme model for the delivery of the pre-registration nursing learning disabilities field which presents significant geographical challenges. We found that the teaching and learning support needs of student nurses studying the learning disabilities field are currently being met. However due to the challenges involved we recommend that to maintain the quality of the programme and further expand the model the resource allocation for lecturers would benefit from being reviewed (69, 98). 317249/Sep 2016 Page 14 of 41

Risk indicator 1.2.1 - sufficient appropriately qualified mentors / sign-off mentors / practice teachers available to support numbers of students What we found before the event There is clear accountability for the allocation of students to practice placement settings with sufficient suitable mentors and sign-off mentors available (20). The pre-registration nursing programme documentation provides evidence that students are allocated to an identified mentor, practice teacher or supervisor during practice learning (4). GCU confirmed that NHS Education for Scotland has set up a 'short life' working group to manage the challenges faced in maintaining mentors within the independent sector areas (4). What we found at the event We found that mentors and sign-off mentors show a high commitment and enthusiasm for their role with students. We were told that there are around 7,000 mentors and signoff mentors appropriately qualified and able to support students and that this presents a challenge in ensuring that they are all kept up to date and meet NMC requirements (62, 80 96). Students told us that they are allocated mentors with due regard in practice placements who support their learning. They told us that mentorship is experienced on a one-to-one basis and co-mentoring strategies are deployed to support student learning and to ensure that mentorship continuity is maintained where mentors are absent. Mentors report that they are supported in maintaining their currency by PEFs who provide mentor updates. Mentors and sign-off mentors told us that they are provided with time to perform their roles (80 96). We were told that service level agreements are in place to specify the number of students that can be accommodated by each placement. PEFs told us that where a placement is used by more than one university, the universities collaborate and allocate placements through the GCU placement system to ensure that the service level agreement is not exceeded. Staff at all levels and students could articulate the process for allocating students to placements. Students told us that they are satisfied that efforts are made to meet their personal needs and choices in the allocation of placements (80 96). We found that the hub and spoke placement model was, in general, well received and understood. Students told us that they benefit from getting to know a placement but also from being able to follow the patient/client journey and gain experience in other areas. Some students told us that it also enables them to see how services linked together (68-69, 80 96). We conclude that there are sufficient appropriately qualified mentors and sign-off mentors available to support the number of students. 317249/Sep 2016 Page 15 of 41

Outcome: Standard met Comments: The all Scotland programme model for the delivery of the pre-registration nursing learning disabilities field presents significant geographical challenges. The maintenance of the quality of the programme and further expansion of the model would benefit from a review of the resource allocation for lecturers. Areas for future monitoring: Sufficient academic staff to support the pre-registration nursing learning disabilities field. Findings against key risks Key risk 2 Admissions & Progression 2.1 Inadequate safeguards are in place to prevent unsuitable students from entering and progressing to qualification Risk indicator 2.1.1 - admission processes follow NMC requirements What we found before the event Selection and admission processes include practitioners and service users and carers (20). The selection process has representatives from practice, service users and an agreed criterion is used. During the approval event in 2015 service users and carers confirmed they were involved in the open days but not on the recruitment panels and highlighted that they would like to be involved (4, 26). Panel members are given equality and diversity training. All staff involved in the admission process have completed equality and diversity training. Admission processes include checks of good health and conduct (20, 25, 27). The selection process has a face to face component which includes a values based approach (4). The admissions process clearly specifies the appropriate academic and professional entry requirements such as for school leavers, mature students and overseas applicants (4). GCU clearly manages reasonable adjustment; the issue of diversity is also further managed through the delivery of the programme and is articulated throughout the programme documentation and the equality and diversity policy and procedure documents (4). 317249/Sep 2016 Page 16 of 41

What we found at the event Programme leaders told us that students apply for places through the universities and colleges admission service (UCAS) and are offered a place on the basis of a scoring system. This uses a variety of tools including, qualifications, personal statement, evidence of carer experience and a values based questionnaire. The scoring criterion has been agreed with representatives from associated practice placement staff and service users and carers. We were told that the Cambridge personality styles questionnaire (CPSQ) was successfully piloted and informed the use of a values based approach to the selection process. We found that good health and good character screening takes place prior to commencement on the programme. We found that students for whom their first language is not English are tested through the use of an international English language test (IELT) and that a score of seven across all areas is required (43, 68 70, 79). We were told that applicants who achieve the required scores are sent a conditional offer based on successful health screening and PVG clearance. We were told that no face to face interviews takes place as part of the selection process prior to an offer being made but that they are encouraged to attend open days where there is face to face engagement with academic and practice staff and service users and carers. At these events students are given as much information as possible to help them selfselect for their career. We were told that if there were any concerns raised about students at these events then the offer could be withdrawn and that this was explained to them in the offer letter. They told us that most students attend open days or the information days following a conditional offer. We met students who told us that they had entered the programme following the UCAS offer and compulsory clearances without attending a face to face session with school representatives. Other students told us they were offered a place on the programme prior to any face to face contact with academics, practitioners or service users or carers (25, 27, 60, 68 70). We discussed the issue with academic staff involved in the admission process and they told us that conditional offers on the programme are made on the basis of a scoring process undertaken on the application information provided by the student which included the UCAS application form, a personal statement and references. They told us that the scoring system had been discussed with service user and carer representatives. They informed us that no face to face component has taken place with students before the conditional offer is made. All students are invited to an applicant s day at which representatives from practice placements, usually PEFs, and service user and carers are present. We heard that they believe that these days provide the students with the opportunity to self-select on the basis of whether they want to accept the conditional offer (57-58, 60, 79). We conclude that the admission process does not meet the NMC Standards for preregistration nursing education (2010) as face to face engagement with students, the involvement of representatives from practice placement providers and service users and carers is not included until after the selection decision and a conditional offer is made (Standard three: requirement 3.6 and 3.7 and guidance 3.7a apply). 317249/Sep 2016 Page 17 of 41

Risk indicator 2.1.2 - programme providers procedures address issues of poor performance in both theory and practice What we found before the event Teachers, practice teachers, sign-off mentors and mentors follow procedures to address issues of poor performance (20). GCU checks for good health and good character during the student s journey from the admission process to programme completion. There is a process to manage students progression on the programme including application of the 12 week rule which is explicitly linked to progression (level four to five progression, level five to six progression, and programme completion) (4). What we found at the event Programme teams provided us with documentation to identify and manage poor performance which included an easy to understand flow chart. Academic staff, students, mentors and PEFs all told us that the procedures are understood. They were able to tell us about examples of when the process was used effectively (28, 30-31, 80 96). Students could describe the process to manage academic and practice failure. They told us about the processes for submitting assignments and the OARs using the university s electronic system. They are aware that the Turnitin package is used to check the authenticity of assignments and practice assessment records (80 96). We conclude that the programme providers procedures to address issues of poor performance in both theory and practice are understood and implemented effectively in the pre-registration nursing (mental health nursing and learning disabilities nursing) programme. The dean of school coordinates the fitness to practise procedures that apply across all professional disciples. A new fitness to practise policy has been developed which aligns with current best practice. The school maintains a database of conduct issues which includes academic misconduct issues and enables them to monitor students behaviour during the programme. Academic misconduct issues are not normally referred to the fitness to practise panel but if there were multiple issues, a referral would be made. The fitness to practise panel for pre-registration nursing students would always include a member who is a professional representative from an associated health board. In the academic year 2014/15 the fitness to practise panel only considered the case of one pre-registration nursing student from the adult nursing field who had forged a signature in the assessment of practice document. The case was considered in line with the requirements of the NMC (75). We conclude that the university has effective policies and procedures in place for the management of poor performance in both theory and practice which are clearly understood by all stakeholders. The fitness to practise policies and procedures are robust and concerns are investigated and dealt with effectively and the public is 317249/Sep 2016 Page 18 of 41

protected (22-23, 56, 75). Risk indicator 2.1.3 - programme providers procedures are implemented by practice placement providers in addressing issues of poor performance in practice What we found before the event The programme demonstrates that there are adequate safeguards in place to protect service users and carers. This includes having a clear fitness to practise process and a clear escalating concerns process. This is evidenced in the practice learning support protocol document, the quick guide for student nurses and midwives raising and escalating concerns document, guidance for students raising and escalating concerns document, and the OAR. There are processes in place to manage student complaints that are related to practice. These processes are monitored through the placement advisory steering group (4). There is a school code of professional conduct and fitness to practise: policy and procedures for staff and student guidance document. This is provided to students before the programme commences. The code of professional conduct informs students that they are expected to behave at all times in a way which demonstrates respect for the university, its students, staff and the wider community. Every year students are asked to confirm their compliance with this code (22-23). What we found at the event Practice placement representatives and PEFs told us that policies and procedures to address students poor performance in practice are well understood and are implemented effectively (28, 80-96). We met mentors who had used the procedures and they told us that they were well supported throughout the process by the link lecturer and the PEF. They told us that the procedure enables poor practice to be identified at the earliest possible opportunity and that issues are then addressed through a remedial action plan (80 96). We found that students are aware of the policies and procedures which are located in the assessment of practice documentation (80 96). We conclude that practice placement providers implement effective procedures to address issues of poor student performance in practice which meet NMC requirements and to protect the public. Risk indicator 2.1.4 - systems for the accreditation of prior learning and achievement are robust and supported by verifiable evidence, mapped against NMC outcomes and standards of proficiency What we found before the event 317249/Sep 2016 Page 19 of 41