Alice Simonetti.
We had a quick WP7 call today, please find below the main items and next steps (thank you, Gaia, for the summary)!
– We discussed the type of learning test that we wish to include in the online platform:
• Entrance and exit test
o What are the notions they have beforehand (if any)?
Can use the WP4 questionnaires which were sent out to experts addressing their opinions on the current DSC
– Donata & Gaia will plan a call with Christina (WP5) & Sabrina (WP6) at the end of the month to go through an outline of the Guidelines and Guiding Principles and the DHQ so we can start filling in the content to the outline. Updates for comment will be sent via the website.
The learning outcomes that have been put together so far are the following – please comment!
1. The student should be aware of the differences in the donors’ selection and protection policies in the different EU Countries (Directives, national laws and decrees, guides, etc.);
2. The learner should be able to recognize the guiding principles and guidelines for donors’ selection and protection;
3. The participant should learn a list of risks (common risks and specific SoHOs risks);
4. The student should develop the skill of understanding the DHQ and of recognizing the differences between the standard DHQ and his own national questionnaire.
As for the target audience, according to the Grant Agreement, some have already been appointed. We could add some other donors’ associations (with the collaboration of IFBDO) and some scientific societies (apart from ISBT). Please, provide us with any other suggestions!
Can’t wait to read your comments
Donata
The words student, learner and participant is used, recommend to decide on one nomenclature (I think participant is best).
Perhaps a learning point could be added that the learner would be able to draft a DHQ for a new product which will be procured based on a risk assessment and available knowledge.
I agree with Alex – I would also consistently use participant.
Dear all,
this is Alice from Avis and FIODS, so giving some inputs from a blood donors’ and volunteers’ perspective.
I agree on the proposal to use just one word to define the target audience: both “participant” and “attendee” sound good to me at this regard.
About the learning outcomes, putting in the shoes of our volunteers, I was wondering whether it could be useful to stress also the development of the communication skills related to the identified learning outcomes.
Finally, I think it would be a good test to involve also other donors’ organizations in the learning program: from this point of view I am sure that FIODS can help with introducing the project to its member (the Federation has already planned a meeting in October) and contacting additional partners.
Kind regards,
Alice
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
