Preparing assessments and examinations. Common errors and good practice.

Assessment forms an important part of the student learning experience and students place a high value on the quality of feedback that they receive from academic staff on where they might improve on their examinations or assignments. However while feedback is important the quality of the actual assessment itself before students undertake an examination or commence writing an assignment is also important. It is imperative that students are clear in their understanding of what is expected of them in order to achieve a particular grade and that there is lack of ambiguity in examinations or assignments. Biggs (2003) highlighted the importance of clarity in what students are expected to be able to do at the end of a unit of study, and that intended learning outcomes should be clearly aligned to the assessment and communicated to students so that they can structure their learning activities to optimize their assessment performance. However as Rust (2002) highlighted there are often inconsistencies in assessment practices ranging from a mis-match of assessment and learning outcomes to the inclusion of additional learning criteria and lack of clarity in the instructions. Such inconsistencies and unacceptable errors in examination papers can undermine student confidence in the assessment process
In order to try and minimise such inconsistencies an internal assessment group was set up October 2013 within the School of Nursing and Midwifery at Queens University Belfast, consisting of representative academic staff from across the range of undergraduate and post graduate courses in nursing and midwifery. The assessment group was to be a point of reference for all school examinations with a particular remit to develop an assessment strategy for all nursing and midwifery programmes and to ensure that all assessments comply with current best practice and with Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) requirements.
Aim
This paper aims to highlight some examples of good practice and common errors that were found in assignments and examinations that were submitted to the assessment group for review.
References

Biggs. J. (2003) Teaching for Quality Learning at University – What the Student Does 2nd Edition SRHE / Open University Press, Buckingham.
Rust, C.( 2002) The impact of assessment on student learning, Active Learning in Higher education Vol3(2):145-158

DESCRIBING SLEEP AND SEDATION PRACTICES IN THE ICU: A MULTINATIONAL SURVEY

Introduction Sleep disturbances are common in critically ill patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) with the potential for serious consequences and long-term effects on health outcomes and patient morbidity.
Objectives Our aim was to describe sleep management and sedation practices of adult ICUs in ten countries and to evaluate roles and responsibilities of the ICU staff in relation to key sleep and sedation decisions.
Methods A multicenter, self-administered survey sent to nurse managers of adult ICUs across 10 countries. The questionnaire comprised four domains: sleep characteristics of the critically ill; sleep and sedation practices; non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions used to improve sleep; and the autonomy and influence of nurses on sleeping practices in the ICU.
Results Overall response rate was 66% (range 32% UK to 100% Cyprus), providing data from 522 ICUs. In all countries, the most frequent patient characteristic perceived to identify sleep was lying quietly with closed eyes (N=409, 78%) (range 92% Denmark to 36% Italy). The most commonly used sedation scale was the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Score (RASS) (N=220, 42%) (range 81% UK to 0% Denmark, Cyprus where most ICUs used the Ramsay score). In most ICUs, selection of sleep medication (N=265, 51%) and assessment of effect (N=309, 59%) was performed by physicians and nurses based on collaborative discussion. In a minority of ICUs (N=161, 31%), decisions and assessments were made by physicians alone. The most commonly used (in all countries) non-pharmacological intervention to promote sleep was reducing ICU staff noise (N=473, 91%) (range 100% Denmark, Norway to 78% Canada). Only 95 ICUs (18%) used earplugs on a frequent basis (range 0% Greece, Cyprus, Denmark to 57% Sweden). Propofol was the drug used most commonly for sedation (N=359, 69%) (range 96% Sweden to 29% Canada). Chloral hydrate was used by only 63 (12%) ICUs (range 0% Greece, Cyprus, Denmark, Italy to 56% Germany). Sedation scales were used on a routine basis by 77% of the 522 ICUs. Participants scored nursing autonomy for sleep and sedation management as moderate; median score of 5 (scale of 0 to 10), range 7 (Canada, Greece, Sweden) to 4 (Norway, Poland). Nursing influence on sleep and sedation decisions was perceived considerable; median score 8, range 9 (Denmark) to 5 (Poland).
Conclusions We found considerable across country variation in sleep promotion and sedation management practices though most have adopted a sedation scale as recommended in professional society guidelines. Most ICUs in all countries used a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to promote sleep. Most units reported inter-professional decision-making with nurses perceived to have substantial influence on sleep/sedation decisions.

A Risky Business: An Examination of Irish Probation Officers Attitudes and Work Practices Regarding Risk Assessment

This article examines recent research on risk assessment and probation practice in Ireland and relates the findings to the ongoing debate regarding risk management practices in probation. The piece discusses current theoretical arguments on the influence of risk in criminal justice and outlines the impact of risk discourse on probation practice in Ireland and England and Wales. Using a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, Irish probation officers’ attitudes are examined in order to highlight key issues facing probation officers when making risk decisions. These findings are compared and contrasted to other research results from England and Wales. All the conclusions identify both positive and negative consequences of adopting risk tools and point to the continued salience of clinical judgment over actuarial methods of risk assessment. It is argued that the research highlights the role of ‘resistance’ by criminal justice professionals in mediating the effects of the ‘new penology’ at the level of implementation. The idea of resistance holds particular relevance for probation practice in Ireland where professional discretion is maintained within the National Standards framework. Despite this, to date there has been an uncritical approach taken to risk assessment which may ignore the dangers of risk inflation/deflation and the need to take into account local factors in assessing risk of reoffending