WELCOME & MEETING AGENDA EU-HCWM “Developing an EU Standardised Approach to Vocational Educational Training Awards in Healthcare Waste Management” Project No. 541982-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LNW WELCOME & MEETING AGENDA 5th Co-Ordination Meeting, Vienna 30th November & 1st December 2015 Funded by the EACEA with the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union

WELCOME!

DAY 1 08:30 Registration of participants 09:00 Welcome 09:15  09:15 Project update: Deadlines and level of accomplishment Project indicators and state of achievement External Evaluation Process Update Professional Networks E:Learning Portal Project Newsletter 10:00 External Evaluation Process – Technical Evaluation 10:15 Coffee Break Partner External Evaluation Presentations 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch

DAY 1 13:30 Partner External Evaluation Presentations & Discussion 14:30 E-learning Platform Design & Requirements 15:00 Coffee break 15:30 – 16:00 E-learning Platform Design & Requirements presentation and Round Table Discussion 17:00 End of the 1st day meeting

DAY 2 09:15 Welcome & Registration 09:30 Financial Matters – Budgetary Changes 10:15 Professional Networks Update 10:30 Coffee Break 11:00 Round Table discussion 13:00 Next Steps Financial matters Deadlines Actions and activities in the next period Summary of the 4th coordination meeting Plan for the 5th coordination meeting  14:00 Closing of the coordination meeting 14:00 - 14:45 Break Out Meeting: Professional Networks Discussion

EU-HCWM “Developing an EU Standardised Approach to Vocational Educational Training Awards in Healthcare Waste Management” Project No. 541982-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LNW EVALUATION RESULTS 5th Co-Ordination Meeting, Vienna 30th November & 1st December 2015 Funded by the EACEA with the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union

External Evaluation The evaluation of; i) the draft NOS/UNITS and ii) the proposed training package for the NOS/UNITS Undertaken by; Dr. Anne Woolridge (Technical) John Salter (Qualification Framework)

Dr. Anne Woolridge – Evaluation Results External Evaluation Dr. Anne Woolridge – Evaluation Results

External Evaluation John Salter The evaluator has considerable experience in this vocational area and current posts include: * SQA Senior External Verifier for Environment; Biology; Applied Sciences; Sustainable Business Practice; Rural Skills and; Verifier Waste Management * College Task Group Convenor for Learning for Sustainability Scotland – a UN Regional Centre of Expertise for Education for Sustainable Development

External Evaluation – Qualification Framework Unit 1 Complying with Waste Management Legislation Unit 17 Conducting a healthcare waste management audit and pre-acceptance auditing for healthcare waste Unit 21 Prepare for an Inspection or Audit Visit Unit 22 Climate Change Adaptation Unit23 Contribute to the Development of an Environmental Management System

External Evaluation – Qualification Framework Overall…. The evaluation was generally positive with no major issues identified in relation to the 5 units. Generally the level of each of the units evaluated does not deviate significantly from a mean value of EQF 6. Some minor suggestions were made.

External Evaluation – Qualification Framework Comments: Unit 22 Climate Change Adaptation: certainly SCQF 9 (EQF 6). This is a massive and complex topic – it is unlikely that any one unit could ever do it justice – there are inevitable gaps and omissions. The material presented is, however, logical and in line with current organisational / governmental thinking – in other words a compromise.

External Evaluation – Qualification Framework Comments: Unit 21 Prepare for an Inspection or Audit Visit: Learning outcomes are clear and logical. I felt that the candidate was not required to demonstrate much by way of higher level – evaluative / analytical – competences. Otherwise the unit is practicable and achievable.

External Evaluation – Qualification Framework Comments: Unit 22 Climate Change Adaptation: Learning outcomes are broadly in line with current organisational thinking i.e. entirely inadequate – this does not reflect badly on the authors. I guess any initiative to render organisations more adaptable and reduce their carbon footprint is a step in the right direction. Otherwise practical and achievable.

External Evaluation – Qualification Framework Comments Unit23 Contribute to the Development of an Environmental Management System: *the unit title is inconsistent with LO1 namely: Manage an EMS for the HCWM function at a healthcare facility. Either one manages or one contributes, one can‘t do both simultaneously. Otherwise this is in line with current organisational practice and complies with the requirements of ISO14001. It is probably only applicable / practical for those employed within an organisation moving towards formal accreditation to a recognised EMS – this might limit its currency.

External Evaluation – Qualification Framework Summary of Changes to be Made to the QF Unit 21 Prepare for an Inspection or Audit Visit: Include more evaluative / analytical competences. Edit learning outcome; Manage an EMS for the HCWM function at a healthcare facility to ensure it fits with overall unit.

„ External evaluation of qualification - Poland” EU-HCWM “Developing an EU Standardised Approach to Vocational Educational Training Awards in Healthcare Waste Management” Project No. 541982-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LNW „ External evaluation of qualification - Poland” Anna Bojanowicz-Bablok, Pawel Wowkonowicz Institute of Environmental Protection - National Research Institute Funded by the EACEA with the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union

Evaluation The analysis of: The comparison of: the basic concepts and terms used in the description of the qualification; the structure of the qualification(s) and the structure of each unit to assess the appropriateness of the qualification and units design; the language used to describe learning outcomes defined in the units; the assessment methods and their adequacy to learning outcomes; the level of complexity of learning outcomes in order to assess the level of units and qualifications. The comparison of: the basic concepts and terms used in the description of the qualification with the EQF and ECVET principles the learning outcomes defined within the qualification with the EQF level descriptors.

Information about author/evaluator Horacy Dębowski Lead Expert at the Educational Research Institute (IBE). Member of the National Team of ECVET Experts in Poland. Lecturer at the Polish-Japanese Institute of Information Technology In 2010-2014, he was the Leader of the National Qualifications Framework Team responsible for the preparation of the Polish Referencing Report submitted to the EQF Advisory Group, development of methodology of inclusion qualifications into the national qualifications framework and designing credit accumulation and transfer principles for the Polish qualifications system.

Scope of the evaluation Unit 8: Implementing a Waste Minimisation Programme, including the sorting and storage of recycled materials, at a healthcare facility Unit 9: Ensure protection of the environment at healthcare facilities treating or transferring hazardous waste from a healthcare facility Unit 20: Effectively Manage Incidents and Emergencies

Process of evaluation Evaluation of the qualification design was done in two steps. The structure of the whole qualification was analyzed along with the detailed analysis of the description of rationale for developing this qualification and the three paths designed in the project. Each unit was analyzed separately. Because each unit has the same structure there was no need to take any additional measures to assure the coherence of the evaluation.

Outcome/findings of the evaluation process Knowledge, skills and competencies (KSC) of the qualifications are properly defined even though not explicitly stated. The level of complexity of KSC corresponds to the EQF level 6.

Outcome/findings of the evaluation process It is not clear why the project uses the phrase “pathways”. These are not pathways but three different qualifications consisting of different units (out of 28 units designed within the project). And these three qualifications reflect that in this sector there are three pathways of professional development, and each pathway requires possessing different learning outcomes (units of learning outcomes). The logic of why such three qualifications (pathways) are needed is clear and adequately corresponds to the needs of the healthcare waste sector and learners.

Outcome/findings of the evaluation process In the description of each unit there is a box “EQF level”. This box was empty in the materials sent to evaluators. It will be beneficial for the transparency and clarity of the qualification to indicate level not only of the whole qualification but also for each unit separately.

Outcome/findings of the evaluation process According to the European Commission recommendation qualifications should be referenced to national qualifications frameworks and then the levels of the NQF should be referenced to the EQF. EQF level descriptors are too generic to allow referencing learning outcomes from single qualifications to the EQF levels. At present there is no agreement among the Member States to reference qualifications directly to EQF. If the project aims to reference qualifications to the EQF level it should be noted that it is not the common practice in Europe. The need to reference learning outcomes from the qualification developed in the project to the level descriptors of the NQF.

Outcome/findings of the evaluation process In the description of each unit there is a box “Assessment Criteria” – in fact these are “Assessment methods”.

Outcome/findings of the evaluation process The phrase “qualification framework” is used whereas it is “qualification structure”. It is suggested not to use the phrase “qualification framework” as it suggests level descriptors of the national qualification framework not the description of units and learning outcomes of the qualification.

Outcome/findings of the evaluation process In the description of each unit there is a box “EQF Credit Value”. EU documents do not define such term. There are two European credit systems: ECTS and ECVET. If the “EQF Credit Value” corresponds to the concept of “notional learning hours” as in the British system or workload concept (as in the ECTS) it should be clearly indicated. It will be beneficial if the learner knew the workload needed to achieve learning outcomes defined within each unit. If there is some other logic behind the “EQF Credit Value” it should be explained. This box was empty in the materials sent to evaluators. Maybe it will be a good idea to assess the credit value of the each (major) learning outcome.

EU-HCWM “Developing an EU Standardised Approach to Vocational Educational Training Awards in Healthcare Waste Management” Project No. 541982-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LNW NEXT STEPS 5th Co-Ordination Meeting, Vienna 30th November & 1st December 2015 Funded by the EACEA with the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union

Exploitation Plan Food for Thought

UK Vocational Training System SQA/WAMITAB Approved Centres External Audited

UK Vocational Training System - Stakeholders Candidate Trainer Assessor Internal Verifier Centre Co-ordinator Head of Centre External Verifier (SQA/WAMITAB – Candidate Management & Quality Management)

UK Vocational Training System - Process Candidate Induction – visit 1 Centre Registration Qualification Authority Registered Candidate Portfolio Building/Hand Holding visits – visit 2 to 4 Candidate Portfolio Completion and Facility Walkover – visit 5 Candidate Portfolio Assessment Candidate Portfolio Internal Verification Candidate Resulting with Qualification Authority External Verification

RESPONSIBLE PARTNER(S) WORK PACKAGE 1 DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBLE PARTNER(S) DEADLINE 6th Co-ordination Meeting SINERGIE + All partners 31st March 2016

RESPONSIBLE PARTNER(S) WORK PACKAGE 5 DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBLE PARTNER(S) DEADLINE Revised Training Package All except NHS Confed, ISWA & EUPH 31st November 2015

RESPONSIBLE PARTNER(S) WORK PACKAGE 6 DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBLE PARTNER(S) DEADLINE External Evaluation All except NHS Confed, ISWA & EUPH 15th December 2015 Evaluation Compilation Report IEP-NRI 8th January 2016 Revised qualification and training package All partners except NHS Confed, ISWA & EUPH 29th January 2016

RESPONSIBLE PARTNER(S) WORK PACKAGE 7 DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBLE PARTNER(S) DEADLINE E-learning Platform All except NHS Confed, ISWA & EUPH 31st July 2016

RESPONSIBLE PARTNER(S) WORK PACKAGE 8 DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBLE PARTNER(S) DEADLINE 2nd Informative Leaflet – translation & dissemination All partners ICERMS provided English draft ASAP Newsletter (Winter 2015) December 2015 Knowledge base Continuous Informative Workshops SIGMA, REC Albania, REC Slovenia, NHS Confed, ISWA 31st December 2015 Participation to events & conferences All partners not attended & represented the project at a national event/conference 30 April 2016

WP8 Dissemination In order that our efforts are not wasted we must receive the following from these important dissemination events: Attendance lists Meeting Agenda Meeting minutes Photographs Materials Distributed Posters/Banners Displayed

Financial Matters Timesheets Statement Accounts Add to Dropbox and keep updated – don’t want a mad rush for the next reporting period. Unlike this time, we cannot make any adjustments after the final reporting period. Amendments (Thanasis) Any issues with financials?

Summary of Meeting Final version of translation documents in DB folder for Vienna Pathways out IPR Agreement Draft Thanasis Financial Agreement for the Amendment 9th December; 15th December & 31st December

Plan for 6th Co-ordination Meeting Hosted by Sinergie – 31st March 2016 Draft Agenda to be circulated end of January 2016. Action points to cover; Progress of E-learning platform development Final version of training package and QF Exploitation Plan IPR Participation to National Events and Conferences Project Newsletter

EU-HCWM “Developing an EU Standardised Approach to Vocational Educational Training Awards in Healthcare Waste Management” Project No. 541982-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LNW PROJECT UPDATE 5th Co-Ordination Meeting, Vienna 30th November & 1st December 2015 Funded by the EACEA with the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union

Apologies Apologies from Julie and Jan who were not able to attend the meeting this time.

Information Workshops Albania Slovenia Dates please

Training Modules Process Update What is the partner progress? PARTNER Training Modules ICERMS SINERGIE IEP-NRI SIGMA ET LOG REC CEE CLUB EMAS REC Alb REC Slo

External Evaluation Process Update What is the partner progress? PARTNER TECHNICAL EVALUATION QF EVALUATION ICERMS DONE SINERGIE IEP-NRI SIGMA ET LOG REC SFYROM CLUB EMAS REC Alb REC SLO

Qualification Framework External evaluation compilation report – report compiling the results from each evaluation report, to be developed (P3 responsible – deadline: 31/12/2015) Each partner to create a summary of all recommended changes from their evaluation report and submit to P3. Revised QF to be created, based on the results of the evaluation process

Training Package External evaluation compilation report – report compiling the results from each evaluation report, to be developed (P3 responsible – deadline: 31/12/2015) Each partner to create a summary of all recommended changes from their evaluation report and submit to P3. Revised training package to be created, based on the results of the evaluation process Assessment Plan – example uploaded to dropbox.

Training Package – Assessment Plan

Training Package – Assessment Plan

Training Package – contents? Assessment plans Power point Presentations Exercises, handouts and other supporting materials Assessment Strategy/Guidance document Glossary Knowledge base also can host documents relevant to the training package

Professional Networks Round table discussion after close of CM, with: UEHP ISWA NHS Confed. HOSPEEM Other partners; Contribution to LinkedIN? Only Maria contributed so far. 78 Members

E:Learning Portal Tal to give presentation Need agreement during this co-ordination meeting Deadline – 31/07/2016 Final QF and training package will be uploaded to platform

Dissemination Actions - Project Newsletter Winter newsletter Content? Suggestions Evaluation process Training Package and QF final development 5th Co-Ordination Meeting in Vienna ?

Dissemination Actions – Informative Workshops Partners still to complete; REC Albania – OK REC Slovenia? SIGMA? NHS Confed.? ISWA? Deadline – 31/12/2015 EUHP & SINERGIE completed joint workshop – any comments?

Dissemination Actions – Informative Leaflet Developed and ready for translation and dissemination Uploaded to dropbox

Dissemination Actions – Participation to Events and Conferences All partners have to attend at least one relevant National event or conference, and deliver a presentation. The participation to the event will be documented via photos, presentations, minutes, list of participants. Deadline – 30/04/2016

Next Actions:- External Evaluation - finish External Evaluation Report Professional Network Expansion 2nd Informative Leaflet Winter Newsletter Final draft of QF and training package E-learning platform Financial Matters – Revised Budget

„ External evaluation qualification - Poland” Anna Bojanowicz-Bablok, Pawel Wowkonowicz Institute of Environmental Protection - National Research Institute Ten projekt został zrealizowany przy wsparciu finansowym Komisji Europejskiej. Projekt lub publikacja odzwierciedlają jedynie stanowisko ich autora i Komisja Europejska nie ponosi odpowiedzialności za umieszczoną w nich zawartość merytoryczną.

Evaluation 1. The analysis of: of the basic concepts and terms used in the description of the qualification; the structure of the qualification(s) and the structure of each unit to assess the appropriateness of the qualification and units design; the language used to describe learning outcomes defined in the units; the assessment methods and their adequacy to learning outcomes; the level of complexity of learning outcomes in order to assess the level of units and qualifications. 2. The comparison of: the basic concepts and terms used in the description of the qualification with the EQF and ECVET principles the learning outcomes defined within the qualification with the EQF level descriptors.

Information about author/evaluator Horacy Dębowski Lead Expert at the Educational Research Institute (IBE). Member of the National Team of ECVET Experts in Poland. Lecturer at the Polish-Japanese Institute of Information Technology In 2010-2014, he was the Leader of the National Qualifications Framework Team responsible for the preparation of the Polish Referencing Report submitted to the EQF Advisory Group, development of methodology of inclusion qualifications into the national qualifications framework and designing credit accumulation and transfer principles for the Polish qualifications system.

Scope of the evaluation Unit 8: Implementing a Waste Minimisation Programme, including the sorting and storage of recycled materials, at a healthcare facility Unit 9: Ensure protection of the environment at healthcare facilities treating or transferring hazardous waste from a healthcare facility Unit 20: Effectively Manage Incidents and Emergencies

Process of evaluation Evaluation of the qualification design was done in two steps. The structure of the whole qualification was analyzed along with the detailed analysis of the description of rationale for developing this qualification and the three paths designed in the project. Each unit was analyzed separately. Because each unit has the same structure there was no need to take any additional measures to assure the coherence of the evaluation.

Outcome/findings of the evaluation process It is not clear why the project uses the phrase “pathways”. These are not pathways but three different qualifications consisting of different units (out of 28 units designed within the project). And these three qualifications reflect that in this sector there are three pathways of professional development, and each pathway requires possessing different learning outcomes (units of learning outcomes). The logic of why such three qualifications (pathways) are needed is clear and adequately corresponds to the needs of the healthcare waste sector and learners.

Outcome/findings of the evaluation process In the description of each unit there is a box “EQF level”. This box was empty in the materials sent to evaluators. It will be beneficial for the transparency and clarity of the qualification to indicate level not only of the whole qualification but also for each unit separately.

Outcome/findings of the evaluation process According to the European Commission recommendation qualifications should be referenced to national qualifications frameworks and then the levels of the NQF should be referenced to the EQF. EQF level descriptors are too generic to allow referencing learning outcomes from single qualifications to the EQF levels. At present there is no agreement among the Member States to reference qualifications directly to EQF. If the project aims to reference qualifications to the EQF level it should be noted that it is not the common practice in Europe. The need to reference learning outcomes from the qualification developed in the project to the level descriptors of the NQF.

Outcome/findings of the evaluation process In the description of each unit there is a box “Assessment Criteria” – in fact these are “Assessment methods”.

Outcome/findings of the evaluation process In the description of each unit there is a box “EQF Credit Value”. EU documents do not define such term. There are two European credit systems: ECTS and ECVET. If the “EQF Credit Value” corresponds to the concept of “notional learning hours” as in the British system or workload concept (as in the ECTS) it should be clearly indicated. It will be beneficial if the learner knew the workload needed to achieve learning outcomes defined within each unit. If there is some other logic behind the “EQF Credit Value” it should be explained. This box was empty in the materials sent to evaluators. Maybe it will be a good idea to assess the credit value of the each (major) learning outcome.