Expert knowledge in public Revision of the Norwegian national Bachelor in Nursing Ingrid Torsteinson Bergen Deaconess University College, Haraldsplass ENQUA workshop Oslo, Norway Febr. 15th 2008

Three reports from 2005 to , Phase 1- the first report with two main requirements 2007, Phase 2 -requirements related to the program of study (curriculum) 2008, Phase 3 -requirements related to the competence of academic staff ( conclusions in June)

BA in Nursing- the first national revision of a programme of study BA in Nursing programs including 27 University colleges were evaluated 1 of 31 was re-accredited The whole sector was effected by the joint conclusion; - For all institutions - a limit of 2 years to achieve 20% of the academic staff to have senior lecturer/ professorial status - In addition for 16 of 30 – In 1 year verify that the curriculum is based on research and developmental work

Challenges for the department as a consequence of the report Several practical and economical consequences had to be solved Strategic plans with milestones for how to meet the requirements Increasing the competence of the academic staff; - Who and how? The curriculum; –project work including all academic staff. Strong focus on literature. Further training for academic staff in evidence based practice

Did the report contribute to any important aspects of knowledge? The BA in Nursing program consists of 50% practical training. - Different views of knowledge is of importance in a health profession study program; evidence based, as well as experience based knowledge The report; - The practical training is given very limited focus throughout the report - An obvious direction for one view of knowledge through a very strong focus on evidence based knowledge.

Are there any differences in the reports of 2005 and 2007? Reports should be published and should be written in a style which is clear and readily accessible to its intended readership. (ESG) Partly short formulated conclusions with lack of reasons -Formulations with possibility for interpretation

Are there any differences in the reports of 2005 and 2007? This report is more clearly formulated. -Gives the committee's interpretation of the study programme must be based on research and developmental work -Gives a reason for the conclusions

Some considerations for the public report Clear and simple formulations is of vital importance Is there a need for interpretation of central concepts? Given reasons for the conclusions Consider placement of the conclusion; - in the introduction, or at the end of the report?

Phase 1-Did the report have any influence? For the institution? For the department? For the students? For the public in general ?

Do the reports have any authority? A negative decision will lead to the loss of accreditation; - the Agency for Quality assurance in Education have sanction opportunities through the standards and criteria Requirements related to research and competence have had a very strong influence on the BA in Nursing program of study