Policies

This policy is aimed at Health Med. Training Solutions employees and our registered candidates who are involved in, suspected of actual malpractice/maladministration. It sets out the steps our centre members or trainees must follow when reporting any incident of malpractice/maladministration. 

According to Joint Council for Qualifications guidelines, Malpractice means any act, default or practice which is a breach of the Regulations or which:

• compromises, attempts to compromise or may compromise the process of assessment, the integrity of any qualification or the validity of a result or certificate
• damages the authority, reputation or credibility of any awarding body or centre or any officer, employee or agent of any awarding body or centre. 

Failure by a centre or clinic to notify, investigate and report to an awarding body all allegations of malpractice or suspected malpractice constitutes malpractice itself.

Also, failure to take action as required by an awarding body or to co-operate with an awarding body’s investigation, constitutes malpractice. 

Centre staff malpractice 

‘Centre staff malpractice’ means malpractice committed by: 

• a member of staff, contractor (whether employed under a contract of employment or a contract for services) or a volunteer at a centre; or an individual appointed in another capacity by a centre such as an invigilator, a Communication Professional, an Oral Language Modifier, a practical assistant, a prompter, a reader or a scribe. 

Examples of centre staff malpractice:

• failing to keep assessment material secure prior to an examination
• discussing or otherwise revealing information about examinations and assessments that should be kept confidential, e.g. internet forums 
  moving the time or date of a fixed examination beyond the arrangements permitted within the Instructions for conducting examinations.
• Conducting an examination before the published date constitutes centre staff malpractice and a clear breach of security
• failing to adequately supervise candidates who have been affected by a timetable variation 
• permitting, facilitating or obtaining unauthorised access to examination material prior to an examination
• failing to retain and secure examination question papers after an examination in cases where the life of the paper extends beyond the particular session. For example, where an examination is to be sat in a later session by one or more candidates due to a timetable variation
• tampering with candidate scripts, controlled assessments, coursework or non-examination assessments after collection and before despatch to the awarding body/examiner/moderator
• failing to keep candidates’ computer files secure which contain controlled assessments, coursework or non-examination assessments.
• manufacturing evidence of competence against national standards
• fabricating assessment and/or internal verification records or authentication statements
• entering fictitious candidates for examinations or assessments, or otherwise subverting the assessment or certification process with the intention of financial gain
• substituting one candidate’s-controlled assessment, coursework or non-examination assessment for another’s.

Candidate malpractice 

‘Candidate malpractice’ means malpractice by a candidate in connection with any examination or assessment, including the preparation and authentication of any controlled assessments, coursework or non-examination assessments, the presentation of any practical work, the compilation of portfolios of assessment evidence and the writing of any examination paper. 

Examples of candidate malpractice:

• The alteration or falsification of any results document, including certificates
• A breach of the instructions or advice of an invigilator, supervisor, or the awarding body in relation to the examination or assessment rules and regulations
• Failing to abide by the conditions of supervision designed to maintain the security of the examinations or assessments
• Collusion: working collaboratively with other candidates, beyond what is permitted
• Copying from another candidate (including the use of technology to aid the copying)
• Allowing work to be copied e.g. posting work on social networking sites prior to an examination/assessment; 
• The deliberate destruction of another candidate’s work
• Disruptive behaviour in the examination room or during an assessment session (including the use of offensive language)
• Failing to report to the centre or awarding body the candidate having unauthorised access to assessment related information or sharing unauthorised assessment related information on-line; – exchanging, obtaining, receiving, passing on information (or the attempt to) which could be examination related by means of talking, electronic, written or non-verbal communication
• Making a false declaration of authenticity in relation to the authorship of controlled assessment, coursework, non-examination assessment or the contents of a portfolio
• Allowing others to assist in the production of controlled assessment, coursework, non-examination assessment or assisting others in the production of controlled assessment, coursework or non-examination assessment
• The misuse, or the attempted misuse, of examination and assessment materials and resources – being in possession of unauthorised confidential information about an examination or assessment
• Bringing into the examination room notes in the wrong format (where notes are permitted in examinations) or inappropriately annotated texts (in open book examinations)
• The inclusion of inappropriate, offensive, obscene, homophobic, transphobic, racist or sexist material in scripts, controlled assessments, coursework, non-examination assessments or portfolios
• Impersonation: pretending to be someone else, arranging for another person to take one’s place in an examination or an assessment
• Plagiarism: unacknowledged copying from or reproduction of published sources or incomplete referencing
• Theft of another candidate’s work
• Bringing into the examination room or assessment situation unauthorised material, for example: notes, study guides and personal organisers, own blank paper, instruments which can capture a digital image, electronic dictionaries (when prohibited), translators, wordlists, glossaries, iPods, mobile phones, MP3/4 players, pagers, Smartwatches or other similar electronic devices
• The unauthorised use of a memory stick or similar device where a candidate uses a word processor
• Facilitating malpractice on the part of other candidates
• Behaving in a manner so as to undermine the integrity of the examination.

Maladministration

Failure to adhere to the regulations regarding the conduct of controlled assessments, coursework, examinations and non-examination assessments, or malpractice in the conduct of examinations/assessments and/or the handling of examination question papers, candidate scripts, mark sheets, cumulative assessment records, results and certificate claim forms, etc 
Some examples of Maladministration:

• Failing to ensure that candidates’-controlled assessment, coursework, non-examination assessment or work to be completed under controlled conditions is adequately completed and/or monitored and/or supervised
• Failure, on the part of the head of centre, to adhere to awarding body specification requirements in the delivery of non-examination assessments, Endorsements and other projects required as part of a qualification. 
• Failure to use current assignments for assessments
• Failure to train invigilators and those facilitating access arrangements adequately
• Failing to issue to candidates the appropriate notices and warnings
• The introduction of unauthorised material into the examination room, either prior to or during the examination
• Failing to remind candidates that any mobile phones or other unauthorised items found in their possession must be handed to the invigilator prior to the examination starting
• Failure to invigilate examinations in accordance with the instructions for conducting examinations
• Failing to notify the appropriate awarding body immediately of all alleged, suspected or actual incidents of malpractice
• Failing to conduct a thorough investigation into suspected examination or assessment malpractice when asked to do so by an awarding body
• The inappropriate retention or destruction of certificates.

These examples are not an exhaustive list and each case of suspected malpractice and maladministration will be considered on an individual basis, however, until the matter has been investigated, qualification will not usually be processed by Health Med. Training Solutions to prevent further adverse effect.