Centres Clause Samples
Centres. All participants were seen in orthopaedic outpatient settings, at Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Australia. After the research assistant gained consent, all participants were independently examined the physiotherapist and the orthopaedic surgeon in variable order according to assessor availability. Patients were allocated 30 minutes with each assessor with the same information; the orthopaedic referral, the electronic hospital record, shoulder X-ray report, other results such as diagnostic imaging films and/or ACCEP ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ CRIP T reports (MRI, CT, ultrasound scans) or pathology results that participants brought to the consultation. Each assessor performed a clinical assessment (history and physical examination) and completed a standardised assessment form for each participant, which was returned to the research assistant upon completion. Participants were blind to the profession of their assessors (i.e. they did not know which clinician was the physiotherapist and which was the surgeon), and were unaware of the clinical decisions of the assessors until all assessments had been completed. Assessors consulted with participants independently, in separate rooms and were blind to each other’s findings. Participant characteristics collected by the research assistant prior to assessment included demographics, symptom duration, the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) which is a reliable and valid self-rating tool for people with shoulder pain (Angst et al. 2011; ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 1991); the worst shoulder pain severity over the past three days via a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 = no pain, 100 = worst pain imaginable); and the European Quality of Life five dimensions, five levels (EQ-5D-5L), converted to Australian values (▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇▇ 2013). Assessors recorded their findings and clinical decisions on the paper assessment form. The research assistant was responsible for entry of data into the electronic database and coding of free text into categories for analysis. ACCEP ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ CRIP T Primary outcomes investigated management and subacromial corticosteroid injection decisions made by each assessor. Management was recorded in two ways: dichotomous response (yes / no) to the question “is it appropriate to have initial non-surgical care?”, and by free text “proposed management plan” responses. Subacromial corticosteroid injection decisions were investigated with dichotomous (yes / no) assessor responses to three questions focusing ...
Centres. The selection was based on a wider range of topics. The list in table 4 includes centres that deal with ELSEC-AI but have also broader interests (e.
Centres. Once a military training facility is established as a DAO centre, there are certain criteria that have to be followed to remain compliant. After the Centre Approval Visit you will receive an initial compliance visit (after the first course is delivered) and then an annual visit is undertaken. These visits are conducted by external Standard Verifiers (SVs) and they conduct impartial external quality assurance (EQA). Failure or delay of an annual SV visit will result in a Centre not being able to claim certificates for qualifications, or being in the position to advance to direct claim status (see para 20) in the future. The criteria for Centre Approval is detailed within Annex B, C & D and covers the following areas: • Management systems • Resources • Learner support • Assessment and quality assurance • Records Each DAO centre is expected to support requests and work with an SV to undertake the following activities (this list is not exhaustive): • Examining portfolios / assessments • Talking to students, ie learners • Observing lessons • Talking to tutors • Inspecting facilities • Reviewing learner resources • Viewing management information eg spreadsheets and minutes of meetings The DAO is responsible for the following: • Overseeing arrangements between the Centre and SV to set SV/EQA visit date • Providing the SV with a list of registered students against an award from the Centre • Providing Centres with support if required • Providing Centres with a copy of the SV report • Providing Centres with a copy of new report • Provide support if sanctions applied The DAO Centre is responsible for: • Negotiating with the SV to identify a suitable date to conduct a SV visit • Providing access to the centre premises for DAO staff, nominated representatives, or SVs • Providing a secure area for the SV to work from during the visit • Booking in the SV at the guard room • Ensuring all relevant personnel (eg learners, assessors, IQA), identified by the SV, are available • Escorting the SV if required • Providing all requested information • Arranging inspection of facilities • Ensuring policies in place to address (see table below):
Centres. Most centres demonstrated minor deficiencies which required some further work and submission of documentary evidence of the corrections • Level 3 8 centres A lower number of applicants demonstrated more critical deficiencies that required further work to rectify and submission of documentary evidence of the corrections and in of theses, two applicants required a focussed re-inspection by the original inspectors in order to affirm the corrections The accreditation status of all centres currently participating in the ▇▇▇▇▇ programme can be consulted online at ▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇.org At the time of writing this report (October 2005) 13 of the 25 inspected centres have received ▇▇▇▇▇ accreditation. 2 centres fully comply with the Standards but must await EFI accreditation of their HLA typing laboratories before accreditation. 7 centres have submitted documentary evidence of deficiency correction identified by the inspection process and can expect to be accredited shortly. 2 centres are still in the process of correcting these deficiencies and reorganising their programmes. 1 centre, Nijmegen, was a pilot inspection so was not considered a formal application for accreditation. This will be applied for in the near future.