① Coercion In Nursing Case Study

Saturday, December 04, 2021 4:19:28 PM

Coercion In Nursing Case Study

Caring for the Older Adult Living in the Coercion In Nursing Case Study. Use of Coercion In Nursing Case Study Language. The best thing Coercion In Nursing Case Study students is to actually know what it is like in the hospital and Coercion In Nursing Case Study for COVID patients. The University Cases Office shall copy the Invigilator's report to the College Coercion In Nursing Case Study Delusion Disorder Analysis Paper the module under examination. The FDA 1. Five out of the eight themes related to Coercion In Nursing Case Study, these included communication, coercion, safety, trust, and culture and race.

Sepsis: Clinical Reasoning Case Study-Part 2/2

This included a group based on the step model run by a nurse who had been a service user herself. Therapies spoken of disparagingly included art, and music therapy. While the art therapy was not in itself ridiculed, it was deemed worthless as an activity by the following participant due to lack of communication and understanding by staff. You know like, there's nothing wrong with that it's Easter it's got to be accepted by everyone. And they said to me, why are you drawing that? So I said, its Jesus, remember it's Jesus when he died. You know I didn't go round the trees. He said, but this picture, are you feeling like at death's door, are you feeling like you are crucified or something.

I said, no I'm just drawing because of Jesus my hero dying at the cross. But they wouldn't have that, they tried to look into, thinking I was crucified inside. And I got so fed up with them and things. Six participants raised issues associated with cultural competency in hospital and all of these experiences were negative. Experiences described include a lack of understanding by staff, and racism. A lack of cultural awareness and sensitivity by staff is demonstrated in the narrative of a young Black African woman describing the difficulties she faces as a result of her belief that her mental illness results from possession and the use of voodoo.

Two service users remarked on the difficulties faced in being nursed by non-British staff and this was explained by one interviewee as due to differences in cultural beliefs about the origin of mental illness. Finally, racism towards ethnic minority patients was reported as an experience by ethnic interviewees and witnessed by white interviewees. And that's what I experienced in the psychiatric system. Twelve participants spoke about freedom while in hospital. The focus was primarily on physical freedom, the freedom to be outside, or to leave the unit. Such freedoms were viewed both as a basic human right, and also therapeutic in reducing feelings of confinement and being in touch with the environment.

Conversely, a lack of freedom could induce mental distress. A lack of physical freedom was not expressed only by service users who were compulsorily detained. The environment, staff decision-making and resources contributed to perceived freedom. Some hospitals had no outside space for patients, while other patients, even those admitted voluntarily, were not allowed out.

Finally one patient describes being granted escorted leave but being unable to go outside due to the lack of an available staff escort. Hospitals with a lack of freedom were likened by five people to prisons, with service users fulfilling the role of prisoners receiving punishment. Freedom was concurrent with the codes coercion and trust. A denial of physical freedom was often perceived as coercive, and the denial of freedoms was attributed to a lack of trust in patients by staff. Interviewer: "And did you find the freedom helpful? This category embodies the physical elements of the psychiatric hospitals experienced. The category was a minor one and while it was raised by 10 people, those sections coded were the shortest.

With the exception of one report, the environment was only raised as a factor in service users' experience if it was quite poor. Descriptions of the hospital environment included a lack of basic hygiene, old buildings in poor physical condition, overcrowding with a lack of staff, and lack in basic home comforts. There are no curtains, in the corridor or the smoking room. The windows are filthy; the furniture's filthy and burnt.

It's an absolute dive. It's disgusting and I wouldn't put a pig there let alone a human being. While Quirk and Lelliot [ 2 ] noted that of the majority of the research on service users' experiences of hospital was negative, the participants interviewed for this study identify both negative and positive experiences of being an inpatient in a psychiatric hospital. Central to the narratives of all interviewees were eight main themes: contrary to previous research on patients' experiences, the themes that predominated related to the emotional not physical environment in which they stayed. The difference in emphasis in the findings of this study may be due to a number of factors, of which the user-led nature of the research and the use of a user interviewer are important factors to consider.

Interviewer influence has been a neglected effect in psychiatric research [ 20 ]. Interviewers may influence the type of people who consent to take part, the quality and quantity of interview data. Research suggests that user interviewers may help to engage other users whose voices are not normally heard such as those who feel alienated as a result of their experiences of hospital, and those who would not wish to share their experiences with professionals [ 21 ].

During the interview, interviewer variance in terms of race, sex and age can making a difference to the content of the completed interview [ 22 , 23 ] and the experience and enthusiasm of the researcher can influence the length and nature of the interview as well as disclosure by interviewees [ 20 ]. An acknowledgement of power differentials between interviewer and interviewee throughout the interview process [ 18 ] and an effort to empower interviewees through an emancipatory approach can also affect the traditional relationship between researcher and researched and consequently the narratives elicited [ 14 ].

Finally, analysis by insider or outsider researchers, that is, researchers with different standpoints, such as clinical or user researchers can also affect the interpretation of the interview's content and the presentation of results [ 14 ]. Confounding factors which ultimately impact on the findings of research studies are a consequence of all qualitative approaches. Such influences are often referred to as limitations of a study, however within emancipatory research the influence of an insider researcher is seen as a strength of the approach. When undertaken with rigor and reported in an open and transparent manner, emancipatory research promotes an understanding of an area from a unique perspective.

The physical and emotional components of patient experiences have only recently being recognised. Initiatives within the NHS aimed at improving the patient experience in hospital have focused largely on the physical environment. However, more recently consultation with patients, public and NHS staff has worked to define the emotional aspects of positive patient experiences and include the need to feel cared for, safe, confident and in control, being communicated with as an equal, and being treated with honesty, dignity and respect [ 24 ]. Many of these emotional experiences come as a result of positive aspects of relationships, and this emphasis on relationships in shaping experiences is clearly described by the participants in this study.

The overarching theme of these interviews was that of interpersonal relationships. Human relationships can be argued to be the primary motivational force in life [ 25 ]. It is not surprising therefore that relationships while in hospital play an important role in shaping patient experiences. Service users' descriptions of their experiences were largely centred on their relationships with staff or other patients. The importance of relationships cannot be underestimated, with increasing evidence that building and maintaining a strong therapeutic relationship can be an agent for change in itself and leads to positive client and treatment outcomes [ 26 , 27 ].

While each of the themes relating to relationships, depending of the quality of interaction, could affect the relationship in a positive or negative way, coercion was always experienced negatively and had a negative impact on relationships. Communication was the theme most central to the perception of relationships and an essential ingredient of the patient experience. How a relationship was experienced related to the nature and quality of the communication.

Leach [ 26 ] recognises the impact that a clinician's behaviour and communication style can have on practitioner-client relationships. He discusses aspects of staff engagement that elicit good communication, trust and rapport with patients, many of which can be said to be of importance to the service users interviewed. Both studies highlight the importance of staff being approachable, non-judgemental, engaging, empathic, respectful of clients' wishes and needs, and the formation of a collaborative relationship.

The largely positive relationships of service users in this study with other patients, and staff who had personal experience of mental illness may be indicative of the value of collaboration, self-disclosure by both parties in developing relationships [ 28 ]. Both safety and trust were important in influencing the patient experience and the consequences of positive therapeutic relationships in hospital.

The issue of safety was key to how relationships were experienced in hospital. With one of the functions of hospital being that of a place of safety, service users defined safety both in terms of safety from themselves and safety from others. The need for social input and the link between social isolation and suicide highlights this importance of safety for those at risk of harm [ 29 ]. However, much of the discussion with service users centred on a lack of safety on wards. The role of violence within the mental health system is a largely under researched subject [ 30 ].

With the adoption of zero tolerance policies across hospital departments, much of the focus has been on patient perpetrated violence. Although this remains a concern of patients, in this study it was clear from these interviews, and those of Kumar et al. Service users described restraint techniques as a violent act perpetrated by staff towards patients, and service users described resulting injuries. The practice of restraint is under close scrutiny in the UK following a number of high profile deaths e. David Bennett case [ 31 ].

While the use of restraint may be a necessary force in controlling violent outbursts on wards, service users described no other techniques being used in the lead up to restraint to dissipate the situation. Furthermore, for some service users, staff were instrumental in provoking situations that made violence more likely. Participants described staff winding them up and playing games, a practice that was also found in a study on violence and abuse against social workers [ 32 ]. Essex [ 33 ] warns that the words and manner of staff can prevent or induce aggression or confrontation. A further indication of a lack of safety on acute wards was the widespread report of fear by service users.

Both women and men felt particularly vulnerable on male dominated wards. The vulnerability of women on mixed sex acute wards has been previously reported [ 34 ] and single sex wards are now government policy [ 35 ], but the vulnerability of men on male dominated wards is an area as yet unexplored. It is argued that single sex wards may reduce fear and risk of assault for some women but can result in non-therapeutic environments for male patients, and are argued by some researchers to be an inadequate solution to what women really want from mental health services [ 36 , 37 ].

Despite reports of fear, it did not always lead to a negative experience of hospital. The role of staff in maintaining a sense of safety for patients was stressed. An experience of safety was maintained, despite fearful situations arising, when staff demonstrated professionalism in their job and were able to control and contain situations preventing them escalating and affecting other patients. Another consequence of a positive therapeutic relationship was the experience of trust.

Trust can exist between individuals and in a system or institution [ 38 ]. The trust spoken about by participants was solely interpersonal trust as a result of relationships in hospital. Trust is the basis of positive social interaction and is necessary for daily life [ 39 ], it has even been argued that the practice of medicine is impossible without the trust of patients [ 40 ]. For the doctor-patient relationship, trust affects willingness to seek care, reveal sensitive information, submit to treatment, and follow physician's recommendations, and may also affect behaviours and outcomes [ 41 , 42 ].

In common with conceptualisations of trust in staff-patient relationships [ 43 , 44 ], participants expressed the value of being able to talk through experiences with staff and ask questions, involvement in decision making, and having a sense of emotional equality. Participants expressed a marked disparity in the assignment of trust to different people in hospital.

Trust was frequently attributed to other service users and although intimated, mistrust of other patients was never actually articulated. In contrast, there was an emphasis on reported mistrust of staff, and even when a patient put the well-being of other patients on the ward at risk, the staff were assigned responsibility for their ability to contain or bring the situation under control.

With risk and trust being closely related [ 45 ], it is an unexpected finding that service users who present risk on wards, are not identified as untrustworthy. This may however be indicative of the greater risk that staff are perceived to present to patients. Interviewees give a further reason for the attribution of trust to staff in the description of trusted staff as professionals. Trust as an expectation about the future behaviour of a person [ 46 ], may be expected of staff as professionals about whom there is a level of expectation. Staff that fail to fulfil their patients' expectations of professionalism may be deemed untrustworthy. The yearly census of mental health services for inpatients undertaken by the Healthcare Commission has backed up research studies in highlighting higher rates of admission and detention for patients from Black groups with higher levels of seclusion once detained [ 47 ].

Service users interviewed here describe discrimination in mental health services attributed to racism, but also the more subtle yet discriminatory impact of a lack of cultural awareness. Like white interviewees, the experience of black and ethnic minority interviewees was also largely defined by the relationships they had experienced in hospital. Cultural awareness is seen as an important factor in developing therapeutic relationships, and argued by Hardy and Laszloffy [ 48 ] to be crucial. Since culture is a lens through which a person views the world, it plays a critical role in mental health [ 49 ]. Culture defines what is normal and abnormal, the causes of problems, and the appropriate ways to help a person who is disturbed. Service users described a lack of cultural awareness by staff resulting in their expressions of illness, and perception of aetiology, being ignored or misinterpreted.

However, it was service users from white backgrounds who highlighted racism towards ethnic minorities within psychiatric hospitals. Such attitudes and practices are argued to be a result of both institutional racism in the NHS [ 31 , 50 ] but may also be inherent in the procedures, practice, and policy governing service delivery [ 51 , 52 ]. For people from black and minority ethnic groups, then, their social identity may be used to prevent more positive therapeutic relations being formed between themselves and mental health professionals. Despite the emphasis on the role of the therapeutic relationship in patients' experiences, the role of medication and treatment was also recognised.

Participants were accepting of medication as an important, if not vital, component in the treatment of mental illness. However, its potentially coercive overuse and use without consent led to negative experiences. Participants stress the importance of communication in continuing consultation with both service user and family. Participants identified that the main barrier to the formation of a therapeutic relationship was the experience of coercion. Relationships that were perceived as coercive were always described as negative and resulted in negative patient experiences. Coercion comprises objective coercion and perceived coercion. Objective coercion implies the deprivation of liberty, the use of seclusion, restraint and forced medication.

Perceived or subjective coercion refers to the patient's experience of being coerced. The inherently coercive nature of the English Mental Health Act [ 53 ], makes coercion particularly relevant to detained patients. Reports of restriction of freedom and compulsion to receive treatment by participants who had been detained confirm this association between compulsory admission and experience of coercion reported by other authors [ 54 , 55 ]. In the present study, objectively coercive experiences, such as a reduction in freedom as direct result of detention, were not attributed to the legislation itself but to the purveyors of the coercion. Furthermore, enactment of the legislation in which a sense of safety was instilled by the staff performing the sectioning and experienced in a positive manner by the service user suggests that coercion is not necessarily a function of the Mental Health Act, but of the relationship with the staff enforcing aspects of it.

The use of coercion in relationships between staff and service users is not limited to detained patients [ 53 , 54 ]. Both participants who had been detained and those staying voluntarily reported experiences of perceived coercion. In this study, threats of force were the most widely reported form of subjective coercion. Threats have been shown to be positively associated with patients' perceptions of coercion [ 55 ]. Subjective coercion was most commonly experienced by voluntary patients when they were threatened with sectioning.

Szasz [ 56 ] refers to this practice when characterising voluntary hospitalisation as "an acknowledged practice of medical fraud" in part because "a person is forced to sign in In this study participants saw subjective coercion as an inherent, but unacceptable, part of being an inpatient. Their survival under such conditions is described as 'following the rules' and 'playing the game'.

Coercive practices were used both to maintain control of patients, for instance through the use of restraint and seclusion, but also resulted from staff being in a position of power. Inherent in the staff role of maintaining control is a level of power over patients. It is this power imbalance in institutions that leads to abuses and unethical use of coercion [ 57 ]. Service users describe several instances in which staff misuse their power to hurt or humiliate patients. Such temptations and abuses are documented throughout the care industry [ 59 ]. Freedom and environment represent the only two physical themes that were identified as affecting the patient experience.

Unhygienic environments with a lack of outside space contributed to a perception of hospitals as prisons. More recently, Bowers et al. The deleterious effects of the hospital environment on psychiatric patients was identified nearly 30 years ago by Goffman [ 61 ]. Increasing attention is being paid in the design and building of new psychiatric hospitals to the role of the environment in both establishing a safe and therapeutic milieu but along side this the role of social, educational and therapeutic interaction with skilled staff has also been highlighted [ 60 ].

Previous interviews with service users have highlighted both the role of both the environment and relationships in the patient experience [ 62 , 63 ]. Service users in this study identified the central role of relationships in the patient experience, and their accounts clarify the important elements of relationships and how they inform patient experiences.

The user-led approach of this study impacts on all aspects of the research. It results in an understanding of service users' experiences of hospital which differs in content and emphasis from other previously undertaken academic and clinician led studies in this area. The implications of this research are twofold: while improvements in the environment in psychiatric hospitals are welcome, emphasis should be placed on developing practice to enhance the formation of therapeutic relationships with patients to have a positive impact on service users' experiences.

Secondly, the value of user research lies not only in empowerment of people with mental illness but also in expanding the evidence base derived from psychiatric and health services research. Google Scholar. Soc Sci Med. Hansson L: Patient satisfaction with in-hospital psychiatric care. A study of 1-year population of patients hospitalized in a sectorized care organization. Eur Arch Psychiatry Neurol Sci. Int J Soc Psychiatry. Article Google Scholar. Locker D, Dunt D: Theoretical and methodological issues in sociological studies of consumer satisfaction with medical care. Compr Psychiatry. Am J Orthopsychiatry. Vernon A: Reflexivity — the dilemmas of researching from the inside. Doing Disability Research.

Edited by: Barnes C, Mercer G. Psych Bull. Oakley A: Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms and a subsequent exchange with Joanna Malseed. Social Research Methods: A reader. Edited by: Seale C. Resources for Feminist Research. Charmaz K: "Discovering" chronic illness: using grounded theory. Catty J, Burns T: Mental health day centres: their clients and role. Hoffman EA: Open-ended interviews, power, and emotional labor. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. J Health Soc Behav. Godfrey M: More than 'Involvement'.

How commissioning user interviewers in the research process begins to change the balance of power. Herod A: Gender issues in the use of interviewing as a research method. Professional Geographer. Padfield M, Proctor I: The effect of interviewer's gender on the interviewing process: a comparative enquiry. Fairbairn W: Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality.

Leach MJ: Rapport: A key to treatment success. Complement Ther Clin Pract. Article PubMed Google Scholar. Leichsenring F: Are psychodynamic and psychoanalytic therapies effective? A review of empirical data. Int Journal Psychoanal. Trout DL: The role of social isolation in suicide. Suicide Life Threat Behav. Kumar S, Guite H, Thornicroft G: Service users' experience of violence within a mental health system: A study using grounded theory approach. Journal of Mental Health. Essex C: NHS staff must be trained in how to prevent aggression. Batcup D: The problems of researching mixed sex wards.

J Adv Nurs. Cutting P, Henderson C: Womens' experiences of hospital admission. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. Mechanic D: The functions and limitations of trust in the provision of medical care. J Health Polit Policy Law. Quick O: Outing medical errors: Questions of trust and responsibility. Med Law Rev. Rhodes R: Understanding the trusted doctor and constructing a theory of bioethics. Theor Med and Bioeth. Milbank Q. Med Care Res Rev. Trust in the patient-provider relationship. J Gen Intern Med. Lect Notes Artif Int. Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection: Count me in. Results of a national census of inpatients in mental health hospitals and facilities in England and Wales.

Fam Soc-J Contemp H. McKenzie K: Something borrowed from the blues?. Kaltiala-Heino R: Methodological issues in measuring coercion in psychiatric treatment. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. Nord J Psychiatry. Beardshaw A: Conscientious Objectors at Work. Goffman E: Asylums. Essays on the Social Situation of Mental patients and Ither inmates. Bristol Mind. Download references.

The authors would like to thank the team of The Alternatives Study for their continuing support. You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. HG contributed to the design of the study, collected and analysed the data and co-wrote this paper. DR contributed to the design of the study and analysis of the data and co-wrote this paper.

MS was the Principal Investigator. He commented on this paper. The University recognises the benefits of formative work, to the development of students, and therefore takes any allegation of academic misconduct within formative work seriously. However the University recognises that by its nature formative work is not credit bearing, but is an opportunity to receive valuable feedback prior to a summative attempt at a task. Should a marker when marking formative work suspect a student of committing any of the offences listed within section The Discipline Academic Conduct Officer should consider the suspicions raised and apply their academic judgement as above, in section However, as the formative work does not carry a mark and the access to feedback is paramount in order for formative assignments to inform subsequent summative work, cases where potential academic offences are found within formative work should be seen at an academic honesty workshop only.

The Discipline Academic Conduct Officer should refer the Student to an Academic Honesty workshop, so that the Student can benefit from learning how to improve their practice, so that this will not be an issue in future summative assessments. The exception to this rule is where a Student is suspected of an academic offence in formative work having already been referred previously for offences in summative submissions.

In which case, the Discipline Academic Conduct Officer should proceed to meet the Student under section Offences committed within formative work should always be considered poor academic practice, and should be treated as an opportunity for the student to learn. However, a record of any offences committed in formative work should be made, with the understanding that if these reoccur within summative work, then these will not be treated as offences of poor academic practice, as the Student has been provided a chance to correct their practice previously. Where a marker suspects academic misconduct in a piece of group work, they should refer the piece of work, with the names of all those within the group to the Discipline Academic Conduct Officer.

The Discipline Academic Conduct Officer should conduct the normal enquires into the piece of work to determine if an offence has occurred. If they confirm an offence has occurred then they should refer the case to the Senior Academic Conduct Officer and the standard process should be followed for each of the Students involved. If, in considering the case, the Senior Academic Conduct Officer determines that there is evidence of an academic offence, then they should proceed with the process as detailed in section When hearing cases involving group work, those investigating the offence should meet each individual of the group in sequence.

No decisions should be made until the Academic Conduct Officer, or Panel, has offered the chance to all students involved in the alleged offence to attend a meeting. All group members must have the opportunity to be interviewed individually by the Academic Conduct Officer or Panel, to allow them the opportunity to provide their explanation without influence of other group members.

Once all students involved in the alleged offence have been offered an interview, the Panel should then convene in private to consider whether a the allegation is proven and b it is necessary to apply any penalties. This may vary between the different members of the group, depending on the evidence presented to the Academic Conduct Officer or Panel, and they should be mindful of the group dynamics and should use their best judgement to ensure that all members of the group are treated equitably. When considering each case, the Academic Conduct Officer or Panel should exercise their judgement and reach an outcome based on the balance of probabilities, noting that they may reach a different judgement for each student concerned.

The Panel can either impose a penalty on a specific individual as the sole party at fault, or may determine that the group as a whole is at fault, and impose a collective penalty on the group; this may be more suitable if the group work was designed to produce a single piece of work with a mark in common for all members of the group. Academic conduct and practice Introduction This Chapter is applicable for alleged academic misconduct by students only. General Principles The University takes poor academic practice and academic misconduct very seriously and expects all students to behave in a manner which upholds the principles of academic honesty.

Information on proven cases of academic misconduct or severe academic misconduct will be available to staff who are asked to provide references for students. This chapter shall apply to all currently registered students on taught programmes. All students will be given the chance to submit a defence. See section on meeting arrangements. The University provides guidance on the appropriate penalties.

Each body which imposes a penalty has the discretion to vary the penalty it can impose within its set limitations, but must provide clear reasons as to why they have varied the penalty. Definitions and Offences An academic offence is defined as an act or failure to act that if undetected gives, or aims to give, an advantage over other students, or any behaviour which may deceive those setting, administering and marking a piece of work. Academic offences can take a number of forms including but not limited to: Plagiarism, i. For instance: Direct copying of text, or illustrations, from a book, article, fellow student's essay, handout, thesis, web page or other source without proper acknowledgement. Claiming individual ideas derived from a book, article etc.

Overly depending on the work of others by constructing a significant part of an assessment by extracting large sections of text from another source. This is not intended to prevent a student from developing an academic idea over the course of their studies, for example stating an argument in an essay for a particular module and then developing this argument in a dissertation, but to prevent the counting of credit twice for the same piece of work, or sections of work, however this operates at the discretion of the Panel considering the offence. Collusion, i. Coercion, this is where a student puts pressure on another student or member of staff to act in a particular way, or attempts to do so, with the intention of gaining an academic advantage.

Where this is initially investigated as collusion it will be possible for the outcomes and penalties applied to differ between the parties involved. It is also possible for an outcome to be reached for one party ahead of the final outcome for the student alleged to have coerced another. The use or possession of unauthorised books, notes, software, electronic devices or other materials in an examination or assessment unless specifically permitted.

Throughout this chapter, a piece of coursework is defined as any assessed work which is not an examination. The term coursework applies equally to formative and summative work. Any other assessment such as timed exams undertaken in non-invigilated conditions, will be seen under the procedures outlined for the consideration of coursework, not the procedures for examinations. Categories of Academic Misconduct The University has developed three levels of severity for such offences, determining what category an offence falls into is an exercise of academic judgement. There are three categories: Poor academic practice. Academic misconduct. Severe academic misconduct. Poor Academic Practice Poor academic practice may arise from lack of understanding of academic protocols or a misunderstanding of expected academic conventions of the discipline.

The student had already been found guilty of a similar offence in a similar assessment, and could therefore be reasonably expected to have familiarised themselves with the academic practice of the discipline. Academic misconduct cases are normally handled at College level. Examples include: Taking notes into or using any unauthorised device in an examination. Impersonating another person during an examination or arranging for another person to impersonate any individual during an examination.

An assignment that includes extensive, or otherwise significant quantity, of un-attributed or incorrectly attributed copying. Any case where a student has previously been penalised for Academic Misconduct. The use by a student of essay sites that may involve a commercial transaction, with or without the authors consent. Misconduct within a dissertation or thesis of a taught postgraduate programme. Owing to the level of study, this would normally be placed within this category. Where the College suspects that any of the underlying data used by the student has been either falsified or fabricated. Responsibilities for Partner Institutions All partner institutions delivering programmes validated by the University of Exeter are required to follow the procedures below, except that Associate Dean Education shall be taken to mean the head of the academic unit concerned, who shall keep the Principal of the partner institution and the Academic Partnership Team at the University of Exeter partnerships exeter.

Responsibilities of the University The University will ensure that all procedures and policies relating to academic offences are fit for purpose and widely available to both staff and students. Responsibilities of Colleges All Colleges will ensure that they have appropriate arrangements in place in order to comply with the requirements set out in this Chapter. When submitting work for assessment, each student will certify the work is their own. Formal responsibility for the implementation of this procedure, within Colleges, lies with the Associate Dean of Education and the Education Business Partner.

In doing so they may wish to also inform the module convenor if they are not them. The Discipline Academic Conduct Officer will consider the Assignment, and checked the work to ascertain whether there is an issue of Academic offence. The Discipline Academic Conduct Officer, as a trained member of staff, will then form an academic judgment about the suspicions raised with them. They may determine that there is no evidence of an offence in the work and that no concerns need be pursued, in which case they should refer the case back to the marker or Module Convenor who will resume marking under the normal marking process.

Or, the Discipline Academic Conduct Officer may find there is a concern and the work needs to be considered further, in which case the Discipline Academic Conduct Officer must make a formal referral of the case to their Senior Academic Conduct Officer, and the relevant professional services team details for the College Cases Team can be found here In cases where evidence of a suspected offence is found, the Senior Academic Conduct Officer for the College concerned shall be responsible for the matter in the first instance. Under the guidance of the Senior Academic Conduct Officer the relevant professional services team will retrieve all previous summative assessments deemed to be relevant to the case in question, and the Discipline Academic Conduct Officer should re-checked these for academic offences.

This would apply particularly in cases of final year students or in cases of suspected severe academic misconduct. Any assessments in which possible offences are identified can then be subject to investigation under the formal process and will form part of the ongoing case. The Senior Academic Conduct Officers then considers the case and either agrees with the recommendation of the Discipline Academic Conduct Officer or makes their own recommendations.

They then direct the case to be dealt with in one of the following ways, at which point the student will be advised by a written letter of the nature of the suspected offence and informed which of the following procedures will apply: That the Student is requested to attend an Academic Honesty workshop. That the concerns raised are sufficiently serious to refer the case directly to the University Cases Team under section Examples of circumstances in which Academic Conduct Officers may be required to apply additional consideration to these steps of the process are outlined in Appendices B and C below. The offer of an Academic Honesty Workshops, in place of an individual meeting as per It recognises that such practices, if unaddressed, may lead to further instances of poor academic practice, which may in turn lead to further allegations of an academic offence.

This workshop is therefore corrective and educational in nature and acts as an alternative to penalties as a way of resolving the issues. The workshop may be facilitated by the Discipline Academic Conduct Officer or another suitable academic, such as the module convenor. A record of this learning intervention will be kept by the College Cases Team. It is not likely that a workshop would be offered as an outcome to an investigation of a second academic offence. The Academic Honesty Workshops should cover why the students have been called to the workshop in general terms then talk through how to reference according to discipline conventions and how to avoid poor practice in the future.

Thus moving the emphasis away from punishment towards prevention and education. Students who fail to attend or engage with their scheduled mandatory workshop will not be invited to a further workshop. It will be deemed as a learning opportunity even if a Students fails to attend, and this will be taken into consideration if the Student commits further offences. The Academic Conduct Officer should meet with the student along with an administrator who will take notes of the meeting.

The Academic Conduct Officer will discuss the alleged offence and, if in attendance, will offer the student the opportunity to ask for further clarifications. After the discussion, the Academic Conduct Officer will make a judgement on the case. They may apply a penalty from the Tariff of Penalties, or may find the student not guilty of the offence. If the Academic Conduct Officer wishes to apply a penalty, then they may apply up to and including penalty B from the Tariff of Penalties in section A copy of the notes of the meeting will be included with this notification. Students are entitled to appeal the decision of the Academic Conduct Officer per section The Student should be invited to meet with a Panel of staff, to discuss the alleged offences in their work.

The Panel will consist of three members, at least two of whom will be academic members of staff. It should be chaired by the Senior Academic Conduct Officer, and will include either other Academic Conduct Officers, or academics from within the discipline concerned, or the Education Business Partner or nominee. The Panel must nominate a secretary who may also be a Panel member who will be responsible for taking notes of the meeting. The staff on a College Level Panel must not include those who are responsible for marking, moderating or supervising the assignment to which the allegation refers.

The Panel will discuss the alleged offence and, if in attendance, will offer the student the opportunity to ask for further clarifications. After the discussion, the Panel will deliberate and make a judgement on the case. The Panel should then determine whether an offence has taken place. The College Level Panel should determine the exact offence the student has committed and whether this constitutes either poor academic practice or academic misconduct. When deliberating the offence College Level Panels should give regard to the level of advantage which would have been gained by the student if the act or failure to act had not been detected. Should the Panel conclude that there has been a case of either poor academic practice or academic misconduct, then they should impose a penalty from the tariff contained in section They may impose up to and including Tariff D.

Where a penalty clearly impacts on progression or the ability of the student to pass the module, the College Level Panel should give a clear reason for imposition of the penalty. If the College Level Panel considers that none of the penalties available to them in section The College shall write to the student to indicate this. The student has the right to appeal against any decision taken by the College Level Panel as set out in section Arrangements for Discipline and College Level meetings The invitation to a meeting should be sent at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. The student has the right to appeal against any decision taken by the College Level Panel as set out in Section All relevant documentation should be made available to the student five working days prior to the meeting.

If the College appointed an Investigating Officer, then their report should be made available to the student as part of the relevant documentation sent to the student five working days in advance of the meeting. The Panel may call the Investigating Officer to present their findings but must notify the Student of their intention to call a witness at least one working day before the meeting. If the Student intends to have a witness present they must notify the relevant team at least one working day prior to the meeting.

The student may be accompanied by a supporter please see the definition of such a person in If the Student wishes for a supporter to attend the meeting with them, they will need to arrange this themselves. The student must state whether they will be bringing a supporter with them and if so, who the supporter is and must notify the relevant team at least one working day prior to the meeting. If a student is not in attendance consideration of the case will take place in their absence and the outcome will be communicated to them as normal. Students have the right to submit a defence. This may be in writing or in person, but is not a requirement. However, Students cannot prevent any hearing from taking place through non-submission of a defence or non- attendance at a meeting, providing reasonable steps have been taken to give the student the opportunity to attend or to submit a statement.

The student must provide the College with their written statement and any evidence that they wish to have taken into consideration by the Panel at least one whole working day ahead of the meeting along with confirmation of whether or not they will be attending. Meetings will only be rescheduled in the event of the Student providing evidence of exceptional circumstances preventing them from engaging with the procedure. Such circumstances might include hospitalisation. The student shall be entitled to be present for the duration of the meeting.

Normally, the decision of the Panel and outcome of the case will not be given verbally on the day of the meeting but will be communicated in writing within 10 working days of the meeting. The use of electronic audio recording equipment will not normally be allowed and would only be permitted at the discretion of the Chair. At the same time the student must be informed of the fact that they are being reported to the University Cases Office. If the student is suspected of plagiarism or collusion then the report should clearly indicate by cross-referencing what sections of text have been plagiarised and from what source. A Committee of Academic Enquiry will be convened as soon as possible following receipt of the College report.

Exceptionally in cases where the scale of offence does not warrant a Committee hearing , on receiving a report from a College, the Director of Governance, Compliance and Risk or nominee may, in consultation with the Dean of the Faculty, direct the College to deal with the suspected case as set out in section Not less than five working days ahead of that meeting, the University Cases Office shall provide the student with a copy of the report from the College, along with any other supporting evidence and a copy of these procedures. The student may make a written statement to the Committee, supply any evidence that they wish to have taken into consideration by the Committee, and may also call witnesses of their own, the details of which must be provided to the University Cases Office not later than one whole working day ahead of the Committee's meeting.

The student is entitled to attend the Committee meeting for its duration except as detailed in The student may be accompanied by a supporter the definition of such a person is defined above in section The use of electronic audio recording equipment will not normally be allowed and is at the discretion of the Chair. The student may direct questions to the College representative and any witnesses called directly in an appropriate manner. Proxies or substitutes for the student will not be permitted. The College will be invited to send a Representative to attend for the duration of the meeting except as detailed in The College Representative shall have the right to call other witnesses to appear before the Committee. The University Cases Office shall be notified of these witnesses no later than one whole working day ahead of the Committee meeting.

The student should be given the opportunity to address the Committee in the absence of the College representative. Following this the Committee shall retire to consider their decision. If the Committee determines that an offence has taken place, it shall inform the student and the College in writing of its decision and of the penalty to be imposed. This will be communicated within five working days of the meeting, with the full report and formal outcome letter following in due course.

If the allegation of academic misconduct is proven, one of the penalties from the tariff of penalties contained in section Tariff of Penalties The description of offences is not intended to be an exhaustive list of each specific offence to which that tariff can be applied, but is considered to be an illustrative summary of particular offences for which the University considered the tariff to be appropriate.

Academic Conduct Officers, College Academic Conduct Panels and Committees of Academic Enquiry are encouraged to consider the case before them, and how characteristics within their case match up to the description of the offence column, to reach the appropriate penalty. Where two penalty options are given the Officer, Panel or Committee has the discretion to select the most appropriate penalty. Where a Penalty B or C is awarded the Officer, Panel or Committee should give consideration to whether the piece of work has sufficient potential for the Student to be able to demonstrate the ILOs of the assessment.

Where the Panel does not consider it possible that the Student can successfully demonstrate they would be meeting the ILOS of the assessment, as the poor academic practice is too extensive, then they may mandate a new question. Where a Penalty B or C is awarded for coursework the Officer, Panel or Committee should give consideration to setting an appropriate deadline for the Student, and should give guidance on what the student should be revising. If the work has not been remedied to the required standard then the Academic Conduct Officer should apply a mark of zero.

Tariff of Penalties for Coursework and examinations sat in non-invigilated conditions. For the tariff of Penalties applying to invigilated exams only please see Tariff Description of Offence Penalty to be imposed for offences identified in coursework Penalty to be imposed for offences identified in non-invigilated examinations typically sat remotely and submitted online A Misunderstanding of the academic conventions of the discipline The Student will be issued a warning letter. This warning letter will remain on file. The Student will be issued a warning letter. B Minor amount of poor academic practice within the piece of work The student will be formally reprimanded and asked to resubmit the piece of work with the poor academic practice removed.

The mark for this resubmission will not be capped. The student will be formally reprimanded and a mark of zero will be recorded for the examination in question. The candidate will be permitted a fresh attempt at this assessment in the next appropriate assessment period. This will be deemed to be a deferral and wll not be capped. C Significant amount of poor academic practice within the piece of work The student will be formally reprimanded with a mark of zero being recorded for the first attempt.

The student will be asked to resubmit the piece of work with the poor academic practice or academic misconduct removed. The mark will be capped at the pass mark. This will not be considered a referral attempt, nor will it affect the right of referral should the student fail the module. The candidate will be permitted a fresh attempt at this assessment in the next appropriate assessment period but the mark will be capped at the pass mark. This is to prevent a student from gaining an advantage from committing misconduct. Minor amount of academic misconduct within the piece of work Minor inappropriate manipulation of data or source material to support the piece of work D Significant amount of Academic Misconduct detected within the piece D1 The student will be formally reprimanded.

Data has been used by the student to support critical parts of their piece of work and this has not referenced Inappropriate manipulation of data or source material to support the piece of work E Severe Academic Misconduct detected within one piece of work, or across several pieces of work E1 The module concerned will be given a mark of zero with no right of referral. Or E2 Mark of zero for the year concerned with a right of referral, the referral will be capped at the pass mark.

They also work on cruise ships Coercion In Nursing Case Study in the military service. Inthere were Coercion In Nursing Case Study than Rawls Theory Of Justice, registered nurses andlicensed practical nurses nationwide. Coercion In Nursing Case Study would include all Pros And Cons Of How To Find A Nanny to the consent form and other Coercion In Nursing Case Study used in the consent process.

Current Viewers: