Explore the vast range of titles available.

AbstractThe increased use of student internships and other forms of work placements in higher education programmes brings recognised benefits to students but also changes the risks for higher education institutions (HEIs) globally. This paper responds to the under-addressed problem for HEI managers of understanding the varying levels of risk of harm to students and HEIs, and the HEIs’ strategic responsibilities to understand how to mitigate the risk for both parties. We develop a typology of the main types of internship placements and theorise their associated levels of risk according to the HEI’s levels of responsibility and operational control. The risk types are then plotted in a model of risk mitigation, mapped against the frequency of their occurrence and the severity of their impact, with a focus on HEIs and students. We conclude with practical and policy implications for HEIs and their managers. Our paper argues that HEIs must balance their risks and responsibilities with the costs and benefits of student internships and work placements, and contributes to understanding potential gaps between HEI strategic decision-making and operational practice at the programme level, along with solutions to address these.

To be competitive, universities across the world are embedding an international perspective into every layer of an institution’s operational structure. For higher education (HE) providers that offer sandwich degrees (4-year undergraduate courses with a compulsory placement after the second year), this allows students to choose a range of options. Students can enter the labour market for one year, or they can go overseas to study at a foreign institution. For some students, it might even be possible to do both. However, regarding final year degree performance, which option leads to higher student performance? In this paper, we aim to shed light on this empirical question. Our results are drawn from Aston University (UK) which is a world-leading University in Advanced Technology. Overall, using a large student dataset, we find that for students who have a compulsory placement built into their degree programme, the work placement has a more powerful impact on student performance compared to an international study placement abroad. Our findings have important implications for universities across the world that offer sandwich degrees to their students.

The skills and competencies of IT professionals are often described using employer-led skills frameworks. They express competencies as technical knowledge and skills combined with a range of personal qualities. Employers have indicated the importance of developing such qualities for new graduates. In response, recent ACM/IEEE curricular recommendations have shifted their emphases from bodies of knowledge to the development of competencies. The IT2017 ACM/IEEE Curriculum Guidelines for Baccalaureate Degree Programs proposed a model of IT competency comprising three interrelated components: content knowledge, skills, and dispositions, where dispositions represent personal qualities desirable in the workplace. The ACM/IEEE Computing Curricula 2020 (CC2020) report enriched the IT2017 disposition concept by identifying eleven dispositions that all computing programs should include for the career preparation of their graduates. However, developing and assessing dispositions in a degree program remain challenges, often involving internships, work placements and similar student opportunities. A recent mapping of the eleven CC2020 dispositions to the responsibility characteristics of the Skills Framework for the Information Age (SFIA), a widely used professional skills framework, suggested a promising approach to addressing this challenge. Inspired by this mapping, this paper aims to help educators assess students’ achievement of CC2020 dispositions by mapping real-world experiences they have recorded in individual portfolios against the SFIA responsibility characteristics. First, the selection of SFIA to operationalize the CC2020 dispositions is validated by demonstrating that alternative frameworks pose significant challenges for any assessment approach that needs to be independent of particular technical skills. A tool is described that maps demonstration of SFIA responsibility characteristics to CC2020 dispositions, applying a simple, consistent assessment algorithm. Finally, the assessment process and outcomes are illustrated using a fictional student portfolio, constructed to reflect one author’s experience of work placement students’ achievements.

BackgroundAdverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are events that can potentially cause lasting adverse impact in later life. By identifying ACEs early in the course of a child’s clinical encounter, healthcare members are in positions to help direct appropriate support to the child and family.ObjectivesTo measure ACEs-awareness levels among healthcare staff dealing with children. To identify barriers preventing healthcare staff from identifying and proactively implementing interventions when encountering ACEs in clinical practice.MethodsA questionnaire survey, held over 7 weeks, was sent to medical staff in acute paediatrics, neonatology, community paediatrics, emergency medicine, and acute maternity services. Email invitations to a GDPR-compliant survey platform was distributed, upon approval from various departmental safeguarding leads. Results were consolidated and analysed using Excel software. Respondents from CAMHS were excluded due to CAMHS operating under a different trust.Participants were asked about their current awareness of ACEs and their confidence levels using ACEs in their daily clinical practice; where they had received their ACEs-training; and whether they were keen to attend ACEs-training. They were also asked to select from a list, what would be classified as ACEs.Results87 responders out of 283 invites (31% response rate) were received. 38 responders (44%) were Nursing staff, 7 (8.0%) were Midwifery staff, 16 (18.5%) Consultants, 2 (2.3%) associate specialists, 15 (17%) specialty registrars, 5 (5.7%) senior house officers, 1 (1.1%) foundation doctor, and 3 (3.4%) allied health professionals (dietician, health play specialist, and advanced nurse practitioner).Most respondents, 34 (39%) had never heard of ACEs. Only 12 (14%) respondents were confident in applying ACEs in clinical practice.When shown a list of social circumstances and asked to identify which were ACEs, 75 (86%) correctly identified all ACEs in the list. ACEs that were least recognised by responders were ‘Migration’ (78, 90% had correctly identified this ACE), ‘Parental mental ill-health’ and ‘Bereavement’ (82, 94%).75 (86%) respondents were unaware of ACEs-training in the Trust. 71 (82%) had never attended ACEs-training before. Of those who did (16; 18%), cited ACEs-training were from Online modules, safeguarding training run by the Local Authority, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Level 4 training, or regional paediatric study days, and trust induction.79 (91%) respondents expressed eagerness to attend ACEs-training. Of the respondents who expressed ‘No,’ (8, 9%), reasons were: ‘Different priorities’, ‘Unsure of benefits,’ ‘Covered in safeguarding’, and ‘A trauma-informed approach rather than the ACEs model, is better.’ConclusionsACEs-awareness among healthcare staff working with children is suboptimal, but staff showed eagerness to learn about ACEs. This positive attitude should be further developed by incorporating effective, relatable training sessions either through in-house training, leaflets and posters to raise awareness of intervening and preventing ACEs, or via online Trust or external continuing professional development (CPD) providers’ Learning Modules. As a result of our study, ACEs-training was introduced in Safeguarding induction and training. With more frontline awareness, it is hoped that protective, resilient factors that will help counteract the impact of ACEs can be implemented promptly, into the lives of affected children attending health services.

BackgroundAdverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are events that can potentially cause lasting adverse impact in later life. By identifying ACEs early in the course of a child’s clinical encounter, healthcare members are in positions to help direct appropriate support to the child and family.ObjectivesTo measure ACEs-awareness levels among healthcare staff dealing with children. To identify barriers preventing healthcare staff from identifying and proactively implementing interventions when encountering ACEs in clinical practice.MethodsA questionnaire survey, held over 7 weeks, was sent to medical staff in acute paediatrics, neonatology, community paediatrics, emergency medicine, and acute maternity services. Email invitations to a GDPR-compliant survey platform was distributed, upon approval from various departmental safeguarding leads. Results were consolidated and analysed using Excel software. Respondents from CAMHS were excluded due to CAMHS operating under a different trust.Participants were asked about their current awareness of ACEs and their confidence levels using ACEs in their daily clinical practice; where they had received their ACEs-training; and whether they were keen to attend ACEs-training. They were also asked to select from a list, what would be classified as ACEs.Results87 responders out of 283 invites (31% response rate) were received. 38 responders (44%) were Nursing staff, 7 (8.0%) were Midwifery staff, 16 (18.5%) Consultants, 2 (2.3%) associate specialists, 15 (17%) specialty registrars, 5 (5.7%) senior house officers, 1 (1.1%) foundation doctor, and 3 (3.4%) allied health professionals (dietician, health play specialist, and advanced nurse practitioner).Most respondents, 34 (39%) had never heard of ACEs. Only 12 (14%) respondents were confident in applying ACEs in clinical practice.When shown a list of social circumstances and asked to identify which were ACEs, 75 (86%) correctly identified all ACEs in the list. ACEs that were least recognised by responders were ‘Migration’ (78, 90% had correctly identified this ACE), ‘Parental mental ill-health’ and ‘Bereavement’ (82, 94%).75 (86%) respondents were unaware of ACEs-training in the Trust. 71 (82%) had never attended ACEs-training before. Of those who did (16; 18%), cited ACEs-training were from Online modules, safeguarding training run by the Local Authority, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Level 4 training, or regional paediatric study days, and trust induction.79 (91%) respondents expressed eagerness to attend ACEs-training. Of the respondents who expressed ‘No,’ (8, 9%), reasons were: ‘Different priorities’, ‘Unsure of benefits,’ ‘Covered in safeguarding’, and ‘A trauma-informed approach rather the ACEs model, is better.’ConclusionsACEs-awareness among healthcare staff working with children is suboptimal, but staff showed eagerness to learn about ACEs. This positive attitude should be further developed by incorporating effective, relatable training sessions either through in-house training, leaflets and posters to raise awareness of intervening and preventing ACEs, or via online Trust or external continuing professional development (CPD) providers’ Learning Modules. As a result of our study, ACEs-training was introduced in Safeguarding induction and training. With more frontline awareness, it is hoped that protective, resilient factors that will help counteract the impact of ACEs can be implemented promptly, in the lives of affected children attending health services.

Aim This project was undertaken to assess whether adequate training is being delivered to the trainees in our deanery and to identify what trainees expected from the programme. Methods All paediatric trainees from our deanery were offered the opportunity to participate in this web-based study. Results Anonymous responses were received from 152/244 (62.2%) paediatric trainees. Level 3 safeguarding training had been completed by 75% (n = 115) of trainees. Nearly 60% (n = 92) of the responders had undertaken some form of safeguarding update in the last 6 months. 31% (n = 46) trainees had not received any training on safeguarding report writing. 65% (n = 97) did not feel confident to write a report/statement with respect to safeguarding. Forty four (44%) tier 2 trainees did not have level 3 safeguarding training before entering ST4. Only 15% (n = 23) responders had been to court as part of safeguarding training. The most common trainee suggestions to improve safeguarding training were: Increasing the frequency of safeguarding study days. Increasing access to peer review meetings. In-house training on report writing and attending strategy meetings. Junior trainees to be involved in safeguarding case management and given the opportunity for mock report writing of cases seen. Standardise regional training so as to avoid repetition whilst changing hospitals. To facilitate study leave for attending Court sessions. Clarify requirements at each level of training. Five reports each year for registrars, having a log book for safeguarding cases. To develop a regional/national guide to report writing. Conclusion In accordance to our study many paediatric trainees don’t feel confident in dealing with safe guarding cases. The future paediatricians find giving evidence in court very stressful and challenging. Therefore, we recommend that trainees should be encouraged to attend court sessions involving safe guarding cases. It has been shown that training can improve knowledge and competence in dealing with safeguarding cases. The suggestions of our trainees emphasise the areas where the current training programme is deficient. The training programme for safeguarding children needs to be improvised and needs to be learner centred. Abstract G172(P) Image 1 Abstract G172(P) Image 2 Abstract G172(P) Image 3

As postsecondary outcomes of adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) are poor, there is a need for programs that aim to improve employment and education outcomes. This study employed a grounded theory approach to explore the key factors contributing to successful work placement experience and the perceived benefits of these placements from the perspective of adolescents with ASD (n = 5), their parents (n = 6) and employers (n = 6). Key factors contributing to success include preparing for the workplace, harnessing strengths and interests and developing work related skills, while the benefits include insight into the workplace, recognising and realising potential, working as a team and the pathway ahead. The findings articulate a framework which could underpin future transition interventions for adolescents with ASD.

Purpose This investigation examined the challenges faced by women in leadership positions in the US construction industry. The overall purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the challenges, and identify suitable practices, strategies and suggestions to support the employment and retention of women in the US construction industry. Design/methodology/approach Using a qualitative approach, the authors distributed a survey to the target audience composed of women leaders in the US construction industry, and 14 participants completed the survey. Findings The outcomes of the study revealed the following challenges: negative perceptions of women in the industry manifested through discrimination and hostility; a stressful work environment that does not promote a good work-life balance; and a lack of role models that impacts women’s retention and career development in the construction industry. Originality/value This study discusses possible strategies and recommendations for women in construction to rise through the ranks of power within the industry.