APPLYING THE MODEL: A DESIGN SEQUENCE

The nine steps below cover, in order, everything needed to take the model from definition to an operating, certifying training offer.

Step 1 – Confirm the target audience and entry level

The model targets professionals already working in interprofessional, community-based social and health care teams, holding an EQF Level 6 qualification or equivalent. A minimum attendance rate of 80% (no more than 20% absences) is the entry requirement used consistently across pilot implementation to qualify for assessment.

Step 2 – Adopt the four MCs and respect the MC-04 prerequisite

Chapter 3 sets out the reference-model allocation: 7/5/15/3 ECTS across MC-01–MC-04 (30 ECTS total), matched exactly by the Greek pilot. Where a different split is needed for a given context, this would not be unprecedented – the Italian pilot runs a 3/7/11/5 split (26 ECTS total) as an accepted national adaptation, as a formal reference model range rather than a one-off exception. Whatever split is used, MC-04 must still come first.

Step 3 – Build learning outcomes from the four MCs

Chapter 4 sets out the full competences and summary learning outcomes for each MC. These form the basis for assessable, course-level learning outcomes: each competence listed should translate into one or more specific, measurable outcomes appropriate to the local course format and language.

Step 4 – Choose a delivery mode fit for the context

There is no single mandated delivery format – pilot implementation shows several viable options:

  • Fully hybrid, online + face-to-face.
  • Blended, with the online/face-to-face split varying by MC – e.g. more face-to-face for practice-heavy MCs, fully online for others.
  • Hybrid and modular with optional face-to-face sessions, delivered as an extended postgraduate-style programme (e.g. 750 hours / 30 ECTS, split between direct teaching and independent study).
Step 5 – Set up the examination and assessment mechanism

The common TEAMCARE mechanism combines a Question Bank of graded theoretical questions per MC with, where applicable, practical Working Scenarios simulating real-world tasks. For MCs focused on transversal, digital, soft or resilience skills – such as MC-04 – a theoretical-only assessment is acceptable. Assessment quality should meet the following principles, drawn from Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG, 2015): published, transparent criteria; genuine demonstration of learning outcomes; constructive feedback; qualified assessors; and fair, consistent application.

A concrete, ready-to-adapt examination template, operational in pilot implementation:

  • A 60-minute exam per MC, with 50 questions drawn from a 480-question bank, in a 20 (low) / 20 (medium) / 10 (high) difficulty split.
  • A pass mark of 30/50 correct answers (60%) – the same 60% threshold is used consistently across pilot implementation.
  • Remote, teleproctored delivery; results announced within 15 calendar days; a candidate may object within 5 working days; no limit on re-sits.

A practical/behavioural layer can be added on top of the shared theoretical mechanism – for example an interprofessional-collaboration assessment rubric scored practical component with pass/fail barriers, plus a short mandatory reflective diary. Some pilots use such a rubric only for formative, non-certifying feedback rather than as a pass/fail criterion; whether to adopt a practical layer as the shared, project-wide mechanism is still an open decision to be based on local needs (Chapter 6).

Step 6 – Build in quality assurance

The internal quality-assurance procedure should align with EQAVET (the European Quality Assurance Framework for VET), covering the overall quality of the micro-credential, the quality of the course leading to it, and learner and peer feedback on the learning experience. Where a Technical Committee governs the examination mechanism, it should meet at least annually to reassess the question bank, weighting and sector developments.

Step 7 – Establish the certification pathway

Certification must be issued by an accredited body for such purpose. Two routes are validated in pilot implementation:

  • External ISO/IEC 17024 certification body, distinct from the training provider – an accredited certification body, itself accredited by the relevant national accreditation authority and a full member of the European Co-operation for Accreditation (EA), gives certificates EA-wide mutual recognition.
  • Institutional-recognition route, training provider (HE) = certifying body – confirmed in practice in several pilots, where the training institution itself acts as both provider and certifying authority. A separate certifying body is therefore not required in every case.

Whichever route is chosen, planning should cover:

  • Prerequisite verification before an exam slot is offered – qualification level, attendance, and, in some pilots, a minimum period of relevant prior work experience (treated as a context-specific refinement pending wider confirmation, Chapter 6).
  • An issuance timeline – certificates issued within 30 calendar days of the final assessment is the pattern used consistently across pilot implementation.
  • A validity period and recertification route – recertification without a new examination, given a minimum period of relevant experience in the preceding cycle; otherwise the examination must be reset. (The validity period itself is still an open figure across pilots, six or seven years depending on the country; see Chapter 6.)
  • A Code of Conduct for certified professionals, covering: acting fairly, professionally and ethically according to the code of conduct of the specific profession; undertaking only the professional obligations for which the individual is certified, within their competence and authorisation; safeguarding human life, safety, property and the environment in professional judgement; not undermining the reputation or reliability of another certified professional; keeping professional knowledge, skills and abilities continuously up to date; informing the certification body of any change affecting the ability to meet the scheme’s requirements; and cooperating fully with any investigation into a possible violation of these commitments.
Step 8 – Consider transversal reuse for sustainability

Where part of a design could stand alone outside the CBIT context – MC-04 is the model’s built-in example – this should be flagged for a sustainability assessment, to identify whether it can be taken up by other VET or HE providers, potentially formalised through a Memorandum of Understanding by which providers and regulatory bodies commit to integrating the TEAMCARE micro-credential model beyond its originating context.

Step 9 – Feed user experience back into the model

The model is not static and should be refined as delivery experience accumulates. For each cohort run, the following should be recorded: pass rates and, where available, item-level Question Bank performance; learner and peer feedback on the learning experience; and any country- or institution-specific adaptation made to the model, so it can be reconciled with other implementations over time.