4
In-depth modules
Opening The Smiling Monad…
SM-PEG-001 · Version 1.0.0
PEG and Enteral Feeding Support
Complete theory, simulation and assessment package. Participant-specific practical competence must be assessed by an appropriately qualified health practitioner or person meeting the applicable high-intensity descriptor.
3
Assessment instruments
12
Audited learning hours
8
Supervised practice hours
68
Source-linked and applied questions
Certifier-visible duration control
How the 12 learning hours are justified
The displayed hours are no longer justified by opening a page or reading a brief overview. Every minute is allocated to a defined learning activity and must produce evidence of active participation. The complete module allocations total 12 h, exactly matching the course nominal learning hours. Supervised practice is recorded separately and cannot be replaced by video or written questions.
3 h 8 min
Structured concept teaching and source reading
Counted only when the required learner evidence is submitted and accepted.
2 h 24 min
Authoritative video and transcript annotation
Counted only when the required learner evidence is submitted and accepted.
2 h 8 min
Guided analysis and professional reasoning
Counted only when the required learner evidence is submitted and accepted.
1 h 56 min
Applied scenarios and changing conditions
Counted only when the required learner evidence is submitted and accepted.
1 h 12 min
Smiling Monad app practice and evidence production
Counted only when the required learner evidence is submitted and accepted.
1 h 12 min
Knowledge assessment, feedback and reflection
Counted only when the required learner evidence is submitted and accepted.
Non-negotiable evidence rule
Passive screen time, an opened browser tab, skipped media or generic answers do not establish learning hours. The record must show source use, active responses, applied reasoning, feedback and correction. Critical safety questions require a satisfactory answer and cannot be averaged out.
Status and authority
This is a certifier-ready Smiling Monad internal learner and assessment package for formal review. It may be used for non-accredited provider training, vocational preparation and participant-specific induction. Authoritative external videos and eLearning are linked and assessed, but they are not falsely represented as Smiling Monad-owned or automatically accredited. A nationally recognised result, licence or clinical authorisation may only be issued through the responsible authorised body after its own approval, delivery and assessment requirements are met.
Who this course is for
- Workers preparing to support a participant who uses enteral feeding
- Qualified workers completing participant-specific PEG induction
- Existing workers completing annual refresher and emergency simulation
Before learning begins
- Current first aid and CPR appropriate to role
- Basic healthy body systems and infection-prevention knowledge
- Current participant enteral feeding plan for real-world sign-off
- Qualified trainer and the participant's actual equipment for practical sign-off
Course outcomes
Explain the purpose, plan, roles and participant choices involved in enteral feeding support.
Prepare the person, environment, equipment and infection controls according to plan.
Follow an authorised simulated feeding, flushing, medication and equipment sequence without improvisation.
Recognise intolerance, tube, site, equipment and emergency concerns and stop safely.
Complete accurate intake, observation, incident, equipment and handover records.
Demonstrate participant-specific readiness under qualified observation.
Full learner materials and evidence plan
Learning sequence
Module 1 · PEG-M1
Person-centred enteral support and plan authority
3 h 0 min audited learning17 questions
Module time and evidence plan
47 min
Structured concept teaching and source reading
Work through the expanded teaching notes, official source extracts and terminology. Build a glossary and distinguish worker actions from clinical or authorised decisions.
Evidence: Completed guided notes, glossary and source acknowledgement.
36 min
Authoritative video and transcript annotation
Study the assigned authoritative media or certifier-selected sections for the allocated time. Record exact source locations and complete the source-linked questions.
Evidence: Media completion log plus timestamped or transcript-referenced annotations.
32 min
Guided analysis and professional reasoning
Analyse why each principle matters, identify common failure modes and explain where the worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
Evidence: Written, oral or AAC responses to the depth prompts with reasoning.
29 min
Applied scenarios and changing conditions
Complete case scenarios in which information, risk, consent, equipment or the person's condition changes. Explain the safe response rather than selecting an answer by recognition alone.
Evidence: Scenario responses, decision rationale and corrected attempt where required.
18 min
Smiling Monad app practice and evidence production
Complete the module's app workflow using fictional or approved de-identified information and produce an objective record, handover, checklist or escalation.
Evidence: Saved practice artefact or assessor-observed app demonstration.
18 min
Knowledge assessment, feedback and reflection
Answer the video-linked and applied questions, receive feedback, correct misconceptions and state the limits of current competence.
Evidence: Question responses, feedback record, corrections and learner declaration.
Observable outcomes
- Explain the participant's involvement, consent and preferences.
- Identify the worker actions authorised by the current plan.
Core teaching propositions
Enteral feeding support is part of the person's daily life and should protect comfort, privacy, communication and participation.
The plan specifies the tube type, regime, position, equipment, formula or fluids, medication directions, checks, risks and emergency actions.
Workers never invent a rate, volume, flush, medication method or response to a blocked or displaced tube.
In-depth learning — not overview material
Principle 1: analyse, apply and defend
Enteral feeding support is part of the person's daily life and should protect comfort, privacy, communication and participation.
- 1.Explain why this principle matters for the person, the worker and the service.
- 2.Describe a realistic failure mode if this principle is ignored or applied mechanically.
- 3.Identify the exact point at which a worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
- 4.Show how the principle changes when consent, communication, equipment, staffing or the person's condition changes.
Required output: Produce one safe example, one unsafe example and one corrected record or handover using objective language.
Principle 2: analyse, apply and defend
The plan specifies the tube type, regime, position, equipment, formula or fluids, medication directions, checks, risks and emergency actions.
- 1.Explain why this principle matters for the person, the worker and the service.
- 2.Describe a realistic failure mode if this principle is ignored or applied mechanically.
- 3.Identify the exact point at which a worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
- 4.Show how the principle changes when consent, communication, equipment, staffing or the person's condition changes.
Required output: Produce one safe example, one unsafe example and one corrected record or handover using objective language.
Principle 3: analyse, apply and defend
Workers never invent a rate, volume, flush, medication method or response to a blocked or displaced tube.
- 1.Explain why this principle matters for the person, the worker and the service.
- 2.Describe a realistic failure mode if this principle is ignored or applied mechanically.
- 3.Identify the exact point at which a worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
- 4.Show how the principle changes when consent, communication, equipment, staffing or the person's condition changes.
Required output: Produce one safe example, one unsafe example and one corrected record or handover using objective language.
Integration: outcomes, safety boundary and professional judgement
The learner must integrate the observable outcomes with this non-negotiable boundary: Using a generic course to improvise a participant's feeding regime is a critical failure.
- 1.Demonstrate how the learner would produce evidence for: Explain the participant's involvement, consent and preferences.
- 2.Demonstrate how the learner would produce evidence for: Identify the worker actions authorised by the current plan.
- 3.Explain why a high quiz score cannot compensate for a critical safety failure.
- 4.Identify what evidence a human assessor would need before accepting safe performance.
Required output: Submit a one-page professional reasoning summary or complete an assessor-recorded oral conversation.
Assigned authoritative media · PEG-V1
Rob's story: life with a feeding tube
NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation
Authority and approval control
Official NSW clinical improvement resource presenting lived experience of gastrostomy feeding.
Official lived-experience video — must be paired with the current individual plan and clinical procedure.
Source review: Verify the source page and current ACI gastrostomy guidance before delivery.
What the learner must locate
- • the person and family experience of tube feeding
- • daily life, dignity and choice
- • communication with health professionals
- • individualised feeding plans and ongoing support
Accessibility evidence
- • Translated versions are available from the source page.
- • Use transcript or facilitator-supported viewing where needed.
The learner must record the exact media title, provider, access date and the timestamps or transcript sections used. The assessor checks the cited source before accepting the answers.
10 questions directly tied to the assigned video
PEG-M1-PEG-V1-Q1
1. Using Rob's story: life with a feeding tube, explain what the source teaches about the person and family experience of tube feeding. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Person-centred enteral support and plan authority.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains the person and family experience of tube feeding, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M1-PEG-V1-Q2
2. Using Rob's story: life with a feeding tube, explain what the source teaches about daily life, dignity and choice. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Person-centred enteral support and plan authority.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains daily life, dignity and choice, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M1-PEG-V1-Q3
3. Using Rob's story: life with a feeding tube, explain what the source teaches about communication with health professionals. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Person-centred enteral support and plan authority.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains communication with health professionals, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M1-PEG-V1-Q4
4. Using Rob's story: life with a feeding tube, explain what the source teaches about individualised feeding plans and ongoing support. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Person-centred enteral support and plan authority.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains individualised feeding plans and ongoing support, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M1-PEG-V1-Q5
5. Identify one action shown or described in Rob's story: life with a feeding tube that protects the person's rights, dignity or involvement. Explain how a worker would demonstrate it in practice.
Response form: Applied response with source reference
Satisfactory benchmark: Uses a genuine example from the media and translates it into observable, person-centred worker behaviour.
PEG-M1-PEG-V1-Q6
6. Identify one risk, omission or system weakness raised by Rob's story: life with a feeding tube. State the safe control and who is responsible for action.
Response form: Risk analysis
Satisfactory benchmark: Names a source-based risk, selects a proportionate control and assigns responsibility without shifting blame to the person receiving support.
PEG-M1-PEG-V1-Q7Critical safety question
7. Compare the media with this module's critical safety boundary: Using a generic course to improvise a participant's feeding regime is a critical failure. Where do they reinforce each other?
Response form: Comparative analysis
Satisfactory benchmark: Makes a defensible comparison using evidence from both the media and the module boundary.
PEG-M1-PEG-V1-Q8Critical safety question
8. A key condition changes immediately after the situation shown in Rob's story: life with a feeding tube. Explain the first safe action, the stop point and the escalation pathway.
Response form: Changed-condition scenario
Satisfactory benchmark: Does not guess or work beyond role; identifies immediate safety, stopping and human escalation actions.
PEG-M1-PEG-V1-Q9
9. Write the objective Smiling Monad app record that should follow the event in Rob's story: life with a feeding tube. Include only necessary information and identify the correct audience.
Response form: Professional record
Satisfactory benchmark: Record is timely, factual, relevant, privacy-aware and directed only to people who need the information.
PEG-M1-PEG-V1-Q10Critical safety question
10. State one limitation of Rob's story: life with a feeding tube. What current plan, policy, clinical instruction, law or supervised assessment must also be checked before practice?
Response form: Source evaluation
Satisfactory benchmark: Recognises that external media is not participant-specific authority and names an appropriate controlling source.
7 extended knowledge and application questions
PEG-M1-K1
1. What information must be participant-specific? Give the rule, explain why it matters, then apply it to a realistic changed situation.
Response form: Extended applied response
Satisfactory benchmark: Answer is accurate, explains reasoning and applies the principle without exceeding worker role or authority.
PEG-M1-K2
2. Which decisions require qualified clinical direction? Give the rule, explain why it matters, then apply it to a realistic changed situation.
Response form: Extended applied response
Satisfactory benchmark: Answer is accurate, explains reasoning and applies the principle without exceeding worker role or authority.
PEG-M1-K3Critical safety question
3. How is consent supported during routine feeding? Give the rule, explain why it matters, then apply it to a realistic changed situation.
Response form: Extended applied response
Satisfactory benchmark: Answer is accurate, explains reasoning and applies the principle without exceeding worker role or authority.
PEG-M1-S1Critical safety question
4. Construct a safe decision pathway for a routine situation, then revise it when consent is withdrawn or communication becomes unclear.
Response form: Decision pathway
Satisfactory benchmark: Respects the person's decision, preserves immediate safety and uses the correct clarification or escalation pathway.
PEG-M1-S2
5. Analyse a near miss relevant to this module using person, task, environment, equipment, communication and system factors. Propose controls and review triggers.
Response form: Near-miss analysis
Satisfactory benchmark: Analysis is systems-based, non-blaming, proportionate and includes responsibility and review.
PEG-M1-S3Critical safety question
6. Explain what a competent worker would say to a participant, family member and supervisor when the requested action is outside the worker's competence or authority.
Response form: Professional communication
Satisfactory benchmark: Communication is calm, respectful, transparent about limits and offers a safe next step.
PEG-M1-S4
7. Design one observation checklist for a human assessor. Separate observable performance, knowledge questions, critical failures and evidence-authenticity checks.
Response form: Assessment design task
Satisfactory benchmark: Checklist produces valid observable evidence and does not infer practical competence from written answers alone.
Practice activities
- Read two fictional plans and identify all worker actions, checks and stop points.
- Role-play explaining the procedure and checking consent using speech, gesture or AAC.
Real app practice
Open the participant-specific requirement and confirm the current plan, trainer, review date and emergency contacts before marking the worker eligible for supervised practice.
Module evidence checklist
- • Identity-confirmed learner activity log showing actual start, finish and active participation.
- • Completed guided notes and glossary rather than an opened-page timer.
- • Video completion record with title, provider, access date, duration and timestamped or transcript-linked annotations.
- • All video-linked questions answered from the assigned media; generic answers without source evidence are not satisfactory.
- • Applied scenario responses showing reasoning, changed-condition decisions and correction of unsafe answers.
- • Module app-practice artefact using fictional, approved or appropriately de-identified information.
- • Human feedback, learner correction record and declaration of current competence limits.
Critical safety boundary: Using a generic course to improvise a participant's feeding regime is a critical failure.
Module 2 · PEG-M2
Preparation, infection control and equipment
3 h 0 min audited learning17 questions
Module time and evidence plan
47 min
Structured concept teaching and source reading
Work through the expanded teaching notes, official source extracts and terminology. Build a glossary and distinguish worker actions from clinical or authorised decisions.
Evidence: Completed guided notes, glossary and source acknowledgement.
36 min
Authoritative video and transcript annotation
Study the assigned authoritative media or certifier-selected sections for the allocated time. Record exact source locations and complete the source-linked questions.
Evidence: Media completion log plus timestamped or transcript-referenced annotations.
32 min
Guided analysis and professional reasoning
Analyse why each principle matters, identify common failure modes and explain where the worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
Evidence: Written, oral or AAC responses to the depth prompts with reasoning.
29 min
Applied scenarios and changing conditions
Complete case scenarios in which information, risk, consent, equipment or the person's condition changes. Explain the safe response rather than selecting an answer by recognition alone.
Evidence: Scenario responses, decision rationale and corrected attempt where required.
18 min
Smiling Monad app practice and evidence production
Complete the module's app workflow using fictional or approved de-identified information and produce an objective record, handover, checklist or escalation.
Evidence: Saved practice artefact or assessor-observed app demonstration.
18 min
Knowledge assessment, feedback and reflection
Answer the video-linked and applied questions, receive feedback, correct misconceptions and state the limits of current competence.
Evidence: Question responses, feedback record, corrections and learner declaration.
Observable outcomes
- Prepare required equipment and a safe low-interruption environment.
- Apply plan-defined hygiene, storage and equipment checks.
Core teaching propositions
Preparation includes hand hygiene, correct consumables, feed or fluid checks, equipment condition, power or backup and participant positioning as directed.
The worker follows manufacturer instructions and organisational procedures for cleaning, storage and disposal.
Missing, contaminated, expired, damaged or incompatible items create a stop-and-escalate point.
In-depth learning — not overview material
Principle 1: analyse, apply and defend
Preparation includes hand hygiene, correct consumables, feed or fluid checks, equipment condition, power or backup and participant positioning as directed.
- 1.Explain why this principle matters for the person, the worker and the service.
- 2.Describe a realistic failure mode if this principle is ignored or applied mechanically.
- 3.Identify the exact point at which a worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
- 4.Show how the principle changes when consent, communication, equipment, staffing or the person's condition changes.
Required output: Produce one safe example, one unsafe example and one corrected record or handover using objective language.
Principle 2: analyse, apply and defend
The worker follows manufacturer instructions and organisational procedures for cleaning, storage and disposal.
- 1.Explain why this principle matters for the person, the worker and the service.
- 2.Describe a realistic failure mode if this principle is ignored or applied mechanically.
- 3.Identify the exact point at which a worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
- 4.Show how the principle changes when consent, communication, equipment, staffing or the person's condition changes.
Required output: Produce one safe example, one unsafe example and one corrected record or handover using objective language.
Principle 3: analyse, apply and defend
Missing, contaminated, expired, damaged or incompatible items create a stop-and-escalate point.
- 1.Explain why this principle matters for the person, the worker and the service.
- 2.Describe a realistic failure mode if this principle is ignored or applied mechanically.
- 3.Identify the exact point at which a worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
- 4.Show how the principle changes when consent, communication, equipment, staffing or the person's condition changes.
Required output: Produce one safe example, one unsafe example and one corrected record or handover using objective language.
Integration: outcomes, safety boundary and professional judgement
The learner must integrate the observable outcomes with this non-negotiable boundary: Using contaminated, expired, damaged or unapproved equipment is a critical failure.
- 1.Demonstrate how the learner would produce evidence for: Prepare required equipment and a safe low-interruption environment.
- 2.Demonstrate how the learner would produce evidence for: Apply plan-defined hygiene, storage and equipment checks.
- 3.Explain why a high quiz score cannot compensate for a critical safety failure.
- 4.Identify what evidence a human assessor would need before accepting safe performance.
Required output: Submit a one-page professional reasoning summary or complete an assessor-recorded oral conversation.
Assigned authoritative media · PEG-V2
Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways
NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation
Authority and approval control
Official NSW clinical tool covering gastrostomy devices, complications, escalation and transfer of care.
Authoritative clinical resource — local clinical reviewer must approve its use for worker training.
Source review: Confirm review date and local emergency procedure before each release.
What the learner must locate
- • tube and device identification
- • site and device complications
- • dislodgement as a time-critical event
- • safe escalation and transfer-of-care information
Accessibility evidence
- • Provide diagrams, plain-language summaries and an oral explanation pathway.
The learner must record the exact media title, provider, access date and the timestamps or transcript sections used. The assessor checks the cited source before accepting the answers.
10 questions directly tied to the assigned video
PEG-M2-PEG-V2-Q1
1. Using Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways, explain what the source teaches about tube and device identification. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Preparation, infection control and equipment.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains tube and device identification, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M2-PEG-V2-Q2
2. Using Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways, explain what the source teaches about site and device complications. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Preparation, infection control and equipment.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains site and device complications, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M2-PEG-V2-Q3
3. Using Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways, explain what the source teaches about dislodgement as a time-critical event. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Preparation, infection control and equipment.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains dislodgement as a time-critical event, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M2-PEG-V2-Q4
4. Using Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways, explain what the source teaches about safe escalation and transfer-of-care information. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Preparation, infection control and equipment.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains safe escalation and transfer-of-care information, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M2-PEG-V2-Q5
5. Identify one action shown or described in Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways that protects the person's rights, dignity or involvement. Explain how a worker would demonstrate it in practice.
Response form: Applied response with source reference
Satisfactory benchmark: Uses a genuine example from the media and translates it into observable, person-centred worker behaviour.
PEG-M2-PEG-V2-Q6
6. Identify one risk, omission or system weakness raised by Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways. State the safe control and who is responsible for action.
Response form: Risk analysis
Satisfactory benchmark: Names a source-based risk, selects a proportionate control and assigns responsibility without shifting blame to the person receiving support.
PEG-M2-PEG-V2-Q7Critical safety question
7. Compare the media with this module's critical safety boundary: Using contaminated, expired, damaged or unapproved equipment is a critical failure. Where do they reinforce each other?
Response form: Comparative analysis
Satisfactory benchmark: Makes a defensible comparison using evidence from both the media and the module boundary.
PEG-M2-PEG-V2-Q8Critical safety question
8. A key condition changes immediately after the situation shown in Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways. Explain the first safe action, the stop point and the escalation pathway.
Response form: Changed-condition scenario
Satisfactory benchmark: Does not guess or work beyond role; identifies immediate safety, stopping and human escalation actions.
PEG-M2-PEG-V2-Q9
9. Write the objective Smiling Monad app record that should follow the event in Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways. Include only necessary information and identify the correct audience.
Response form: Professional record
Satisfactory benchmark: Record is timely, factual, relevant, privacy-aware and directed only to people who need the information.
PEG-M2-PEG-V2-Q10Critical safety question
10. State one limitation of Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways. What current plan, policy, clinical instruction, law or supervised assessment must also be checked before practice?
Response form: Source evaluation
Satisfactory benchmark: Recognises that external media is not participant-specific authority and names an appropriate controlling source.
7 extended knowledge and application questions
PEG-M2-K1
1. What conditions prevent a feed from starting? Give the rule, explain why it matters, then apply it to a realistic changed situation.
Response form: Extended applied response
Satisfactory benchmark: Answer is accurate, explains reasoning and applies the principle without exceeding worker role or authority.
PEG-M2-K2
2. How are infection risks reduced? Give the rule, explain why it matters, then apply it to a realistic changed situation.
Response form: Extended applied response
Satisfactory benchmark: Answer is accurate, explains reasoning and applies the principle without exceeding worker role or authority.
PEG-M2-K3Critical safety question
3. What backup arrangements should be known? Give the rule, explain why it matters, then apply it to a realistic changed situation.
Response form: Extended applied response
Satisfactory benchmark: Answer is accurate, explains reasoning and applies the principle without exceeding worker role or authority.
PEG-M2-S1Critical safety question
4. Construct a safe decision pathway for a routine situation, then revise it when consent is withdrawn or communication becomes unclear.
Response form: Decision pathway
Satisfactory benchmark: Respects the person's decision, preserves immediate safety and uses the correct clarification or escalation pathway.
PEG-M2-S2
5. Analyse a near miss relevant to this module using person, task, environment, equipment, communication and system factors. Propose controls and review triggers.
Response form: Near-miss analysis
Satisfactory benchmark: Analysis is systems-based, non-blaming, proportionate and includes responsibility and review.
PEG-M2-S3Critical safety question
6. Explain what a competent worker would say to a participant, family member and supervisor when the requested action is outside the worker's competence or authority.
Response form: Professional communication
Satisfactory benchmark: Communication is calm, respectful, transparent about limits and offers a safe next step.
PEG-M2-S4
7. Design one observation checklist for a human assessor. Separate observable performance, knowledge questions, critical failures and evidence-authenticity checks.
Response form: Assessment design task
Satisfactory benchmark: Checklist produces valid observable evidence and does not infer practical competence from written answers alone.
Practice activities
- Complete an equipment assembly and pre-use inspection using training equipment.
- Identify hazards in five preparation scenarios.
Real app practice
Complete a pre-feed readiness checklist and create an urgent supply action when a required item is unavailable.
Module evidence checklist
- • Identity-confirmed learner activity log showing actual start, finish and active participation.
- • Completed guided notes and glossary rather than an opened-page timer.
- • Video completion record with title, provider, access date, duration and timestamped or transcript-linked annotations.
- • All video-linked questions answered from the assigned media; generic answers without source evidence are not satisfactory.
- • Applied scenario responses showing reasoning, changed-condition decisions and correction of unsafe answers.
- • Module app-practice artefact using fictional, approved or appropriately de-identified information.
- • Human feedback, learner correction record and declaration of current competence limits.
Critical safety boundary: Using contaminated, expired, damaged or unapproved equipment is a critical failure.
Module 3 · PEG-M3
Plan-based simulated procedure and observation
3 h 0 min audited learning17 questions
Module time and evidence plan
47 min
Structured concept teaching and source reading
Work through the expanded teaching notes, official source extracts and terminology. Build a glossary and distinguish worker actions from clinical or authorised decisions.
Evidence: Completed guided notes, glossary and source acknowledgement.
36 min
Authoritative video and transcript annotation
Study the assigned authoritative media or certifier-selected sections for the allocated time. Record exact source locations and complete the source-linked questions.
Evidence: Media completion log plus timestamped or transcript-referenced annotations.
32 min
Guided analysis and professional reasoning
Analyse why each principle matters, identify common failure modes and explain where the worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
Evidence: Written, oral or AAC responses to the depth prompts with reasoning.
29 min
Applied scenarios and changing conditions
Complete case scenarios in which information, risk, consent, equipment or the person's condition changes. Explain the safe response rather than selecting an answer by recognition alone.
Evidence: Scenario responses, decision rationale and corrected attempt where required.
18 min
Smiling Monad app practice and evidence production
Complete the module's app workflow using fictional or approved de-identified information and produce an objective record, handover, checklist or escalation.
Evidence: Saved practice artefact or assessor-observed app demonstration.
18 min
Knowledge assessment, feedback and reflection
Answer the video-linked and applied questions, receive feedback, correct misconceptions and state the limits of current competence.
Evidence: Question responses, feedback record, corrections and learner declaration.
Observable outcomes
- Follow the sequence in a supplied plan using simulation equipment.
- Observe the participant and equipment throughout support.
Core teaching propositions
The learner follows the exact sequence and uses only simulated fluids or training materials unless formally authorised in a workplace assessment.
The worker observes comfort, breathing, coughing, nausea, pain, abdominal signs, leakage, tube or equipment changes and other plan-defined indicators.
The procedure stops when the person requests it or a plan-defined concern occurs.
In-depth learning — not overview material
Principle 1: analyse, apply and defend
The learner follows the exact sequence and uses only simulated fluids or training materials unless formally authorised in a workplace assessment.
- 1.Explain why this principle matters for the person, the worker and the service.
- 2.Describe a realistic failure mode if this principle is ignored or applied mechanically.
- 3.Identify the exact point at which a worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
- 4.Show how the principle changes when consent, communication, equipment, staffing or the person's condition changes.
Required output: Produce one safe example, one unsafe example and one corrected record or handover using objective language.
Principle 2: analyse, apply and defend
The worker observes comfort, breathing, coughing, nausea, pain, abdominal signs, leakage, tube or equipment changes and other plan-defined indicators.
- 1.Explain why this principle matters for the person, the worker and the service.
- 2.Describe a realistic failure mode if this principle is ignored or applied mechanically.
- 3.Identify the exact point at which a worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
- 4.Show how the principle changes when consent, communication, equipment, staffing or the person's condition changes.
Required output: Produce one safe example, one unsafe example and one corrected record or handover using objective language.
Principle 3: analyse, apply and defend
The procedure stops when the person requests it or a plan-defined concern occurs.
- 1.Explain why this principle matters for the person, the worker and the service.
- 2.Describe a realistic failure mode if this principle is ignored or applied mechanically.
- 3.Identify the exact point at which a worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
- 4.Show how the principle changes when consent, communication, equipment, staffing or the person's condition changes.
Required output: Produce one safe example, one unsafe example and one corrected record or handover using objective language.
Integration: outcomes, safety boundary and professional judgement
The learner must integrate the observable outcomes with this non-negotiable boundary: Continuing after respiratory distress, suspected displacement or another plan-defined stop sign is a critical failure.
- 1.Demonstrate how the learner would produce evidence for: Follow the sequence in a supplied plan using simulation equipment.
- 2.Demonstrate how the learner would produce evidence for: Observe the participant and equipment throughout support.
- 3.Explain why a high quiz score cannot compensate for a critical safety failure.
- 4.Identify what evidence a human assessor would need before accepting safe performance.
Required output: Submit a one-page professional reasoning summary or complete an assessor-recorded oral conversation.
Assigned authoritative media · PEG-V1
Rob's story: life with a feeding tube
NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation
Authority and approval control
Official NSW clinical improvement resource presenting lived experience of gastrostomy feeding.
Official lived-experience video — must be paired with the current individual plan and clinical procedure.
Source review: Verify the source page and current ACI gastrostomy guidance before delivery.
What the learner must locate
- • the person and family experience of tube feeding
- • daily life, dignity and choice
- • communication with health professionals
- • individualised feeding plans and ongoing support
Accessibility evidence
- • Translated versions are available from the source page.
- • Use transcript or facilitator-supported viewing where needed.
The learner must record the exact media title, provider, access date and the timestamps or transcript sections used. The assessor checks the cited source before accepting the answers.
10 questions directly tied to the assigned video
PEG-M3-PEG-V1-Q1
1. Using Rob's story: life with a feeding tube, explain what the source teaches about the person and family experience of tube feeding. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Plan-based simulated procedure and observation.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains the person and family experience of tube feeding, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M3-PEG-V1-Q2
2. Using Rob's story: life with a feeding tube, explain what the source teaches about daily life, dignity and choice. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Plan-based simulated procedure and observation.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains daily life, dignity and choice, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M3-PEG-V1-Q3
3. Using Rob's story: life with a feeding tube, explain what the source teaches about communication with health professionals. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Plan-based simulated procedure and observation.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains communication with health professionals, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M3-PEG-V1-Q4
4. Using Rob's story: life with a feeding tube, explain what the source teaches about individualised feeding plans and ongoing support. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Plan-based simulated procedure and observation.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains individualised feeding plans and ongoing support, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M3-PEG-V1-Q5
5. Identify one action shown or described in Rob's story: life with a feeding tube that protects the person's rights, dignity or involvement. Explain how a worker would demonstrate it in practice.
Response form: Applied response with source reference
Satisfactory benchmark: Uses a genuine example from the media and translates it into observable, person-centred worker behaviour.
PEG-M3-PEG-V1-Q6
6. Identify one risk, omission or system weakness raised by Rob's story: life with a feeding tube. State the safe control and who is responsible for action.
Response form: Risk analysis
Satisfactory benchmark: Names a source-based risk, selects a proportionate control and assigns responsibility without shifting blame to the person receiving support.
PEG-M3-PEG-V1-Q7Critical safety question
7. Compare the media with this module's critical safety boundary: Continuing after respiratory distress, suspected displacement or another plan-defined stop sign is a critical failure. Where do they reinforce each other?
Response form: Comparative analysis
Satisfactory benchmark: Makes a defensible comparison using evidence from both the media and the module boundary.
PEG-M3-PEG-V1-Q8Critical safety question
8. A key condition changes immediately after the situation shown in Rob's story: life with a feeding tube. Explain the first safe action, the stop point and the escalation pathway.
Response form: Changed-condition scenario
Satisfactory benchmark: Does not guess or work beyond role; identifies immediate safety, stopping and human escalation actions.
PEG-M3-PEG-V1-Q9
9. Write the objective Smiling Monad app record that should follow the event in Rob's story: life with a feeding tube. Include only necessary information and identify the correct audience.
Response form: Professional record
Satisfactory benchmark: Record is timely, factual, relevant, privacy-aware and directed only to people who need the information.
PEG-M3-PEG-V1-Q10Critical safety question
10. State one limitation of Rob's story: life with a feeding tube. What current plan, policy, clinical instruction, law or supervised assessment must also be checked before practice?
Response form: Source evaluation
Satisfactory benchmark: Recognises that external media is not participant-specific authority and names an appropriate controlling source.
7 extended knowledge and application questions
PEG-M3-K1
1. What must be observed during support? Give the rule, explain why it matters, then apply it to a realistic changed situation.
Response form: Extended applied response
Satisfactory benchmark: Answer is accurate, explains reasoning and applies the principle without exceeding worker role or authority.
PEG-M3-K2
2. What should happen after a pump alarm or new leakage? Give the rule, explain why it matters, then apply it to a realistic changed situation.
Response form: Extended applied response
Satisfactory benchmark: Answer is accurate, explains reasoning and applies the principle without exceeding worker role or authority.
PEG-M3-K3Critical safety question
3. Why must the worker avoid troubleshooting beyond training and the plan? Give the rule, explain why it matters, then apply it to a realistic changed situation.
Response form: Extended applied response
Satisfactory benchmark: Answer is accurate, explains reasoning and applies the principle without exceeding worker role or authority.
PEG-M3-S1Critical safety question
4. Construct a safe decision pathway for a routine situation, then revise it when consent is withdrawn or communication becomes unclear.
Response form: Decision pathway
Satisfactory benchmark: Respects the person's decision, preserves immediate safety and uses the correct clarification or escalation pathway.
PEG-M3-S2
5. Analyse a near miss relevant to this module using person, task, environment, equipment, communication and system factors. Propose controls and review triggers.
Response form: Near-miss analysis
Satisfactory benchmark: Analysis is systems-based, non-blaming, proportionate and includes responsibility and review.
PEG-M3-S3Critical safety question
6. Explain what a competent worker would say to a participant, family member and supervisor when the requested action is outside the worker's competence or authority.
Response form: Professional communication
Satisfactory benchmark: Communication is calm, respectful, transparent about limits and offers a safe next step.
PEG-M3-S4
7. Design one observation checklist for a human assessor. Separate observable performance, knowledge questions, critical failures and evidence-authenticity checks.
Response form: Assessment design task
Satisfactory benchmark: Checklist produces valid observable evidence and does not infer practical competence from written answers alone.
Practice activities
- Perform three complete simulated sequences with different plans.
- Respond to embedded coughing, pump alarm and leakage cues.
Real app practice
Record intake and observations from the simulation, then create a targeted handover for the unresolved equipment alarm.
Module evidence checklist
- • Identity-confirmed learner activity log showing actual start, finish and active participation.
- • Completed guided notes and glossary rather than an opened-page timer.
- • Video completion record with title, provider, access date, duration and timestamped or transcript-linked annotations.
- • All video-linked questions answered from the assigned media; generic answers without source evidence are not satisfactory.
- • Applied scenario responses showing reasoning, changed-condition decisions and correction of unsafe answers.
- • Module app-practice artefact using fictional, approved or appropriately de-identified information.
- • Human feedback, learner correction record and declaration of current competence limits.
Critical safety boundary: Continuing after respiratory distress, suspected displacement or another plan-defined stop sign is a critical failure.
Module 4 · PEG-M4
Incidents, emergencies, records and review
3 h 0 min audited learning17 questions
Module time and evidence plan
47 min
Structured concept teaching and source reading
Work through the expanded teaching notes, official source extracts and terminology. Build a glossary and distinguish worker actions from clinical or authorised decisions.
Evidence: Completed guided notes, glossary and source acknowledgement.
36 min
Authoritative video and transcript annotation
Study the assigned authoritative media or certifier-selected sections for the allocated time. Record exact source locations and complete the source-linked questions.
Evidence: Media completion log plus timestamped or transcript-referenced annotations.
32 min
Guided analysis and professional reasoning
Analyse why each principle matters, identify common failure modes and explain where the worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
Evidence: Written, oral or AAC responses to the depth prompts with reasoning.
29 min
Applied scenarios and changing conditions
Complete case scenarios in which information, risk, consent, equipment or the person's condition changes. Explain the safe response rather than selecting an answer by recognition alone.
Evidence: Scenario responses, decision rationale and corrected attempt where required.
18 min
Smiling Monad app practice and evidence production
Complete the module's app workflow using fictional or approved de-identified information and produce an objective record, handover, checklist or escalation.
Evidence: Saved practice artefact or assessor-observed app demonstration.
18 min
Knowledge assessment, feedback and reflection
Answer the video-linked and applied questions, receive feedback, correct misconceptions and state the limits of current competence.
Evidence: Question responses, feedback record, corrections and learner declaration.
Observable outcomes
- Use the participant's escalation and emergency plan.
- Complete accurate records and contribute to review.
Core teaching propositions
Emergency responses are participant-specific and may require stopping support, positioning actions within training, contacting a health professional or emergency services.
Workers preserve the equipment and evidence required by policy and do not reinsert, unblock or alter a device unless specifically trained, authorised and directed.
Records include time, support delivered, observations, intake, issues, action, contacts and unresolved follow-up.
In-depth learning — not overview material
Principle 1: analyse, apply and defend
Emergency responses are participant-specific and may require stopping support, positioning actions within training, contacting a health professional or emergency services.
- 1.Explain why this principle matters for the person, the worker and the service.
- 2.Describe a realistic failure mode if this principle is ignored or applied mechanically.
- 3.Identify the exact point at which a worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
- 4.Show how the principle changes when consent, communication, equipment, staffing or the person's condition changes.
Required output: Produce one safe example, one unsafe example and one corrected record or handover using objective language.
Principle 2: analyse, apply and defend
Workers preserve the equipment and evidence required by policy and do not reinsert, unblock or alter a device unless specifically trained, authorised and directed.
- 1.Explain why this principle matters for the person, the worker and the service.
- 2.Describe a realistic failure mode if this principle is ignored or applied mechanically.
- 3.Identify the exact point at which a worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
- 4.Show how the principle changes when consent, communication, equipment, staffing or the person's condition changes.
Required output: Produce one safe example, one unsafe example and one corrected record or handover using objective language.
Principle 3: analyse, apply and defend
Records include time, support delivered, observations, intake, issues, action, contacts and unresolved follow-up.
- 1.Explain why this principle matters for the person, the worker and the service.
- 2.Describe a realistic failure mode if this principle is ignored or applied mechanically.
- 3.Identify the exact point at which a worker must stop, seek clarification or escalate.
- 4.Show how the principle changes when consent, communication, equipment, staffing or the person's condition changes.
Required output: Produce one safe example, one unsafe example and one corrected record or handover using objective language.
Integration: outcomes, safety boundary and professional judgement
The learner must integrate the observable outcomes with this non-negotiable boundary: Attempting untrained tube reinsertion, clearing or regime changes is a critical failure.
- 1.Demonstrate how the learner would produce evidence for: Use the participant's escalation and emergency plan.
- 2.Demonstrate how the learner would produce evidence for: Complete accurate records and contribute to review.
- 3.Explain why a high quiz score cannot compensate for a critical safety failure.
- 4.Identify what evidence a human assessor would need before accepting safe performance.
Required output: Submit a one-page professional reasoning summary or complete an assessor-recorded oral conversation.
Assigned authoritative media · PEG-V2
Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways
NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation
Authority and approval control
Official NSW clinical tool covering gastrostomy devices, complications, escalation and transfer of care.
Authoritative clinical resource — local clinical reviewer must approve its use for worker training.
Source review: Confirm review date and local emergency procedure before each release.
What the learner must locate
- • tube and device identification
- • site and device complications
- • dislodgement as a time-critical event
- • safe escalation and transfer-of-care information
Accessibility evidence
- • Provide diagrams, plain-language summaries and an oral explanation pathway.
The learner must record the exact media title, provider, access date and the timestamps or transcript sections used. The assessor checks the cited source before accepting the answers.
10 questions directly tied to the assigned video
PEG-M4-PEG-V2-Q1
1. Using Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways, explain what the source teaches about tube and device identification. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Incidents, emergencies, records and review.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains tube and device identification, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M4-PEG-V2-Q2
2. Using Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways, explain what the source teaches about site and device complications. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Incidents, emergencies, records and review.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains site and device complications, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M4-PEG-V2-Q3
3. Using Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways, explain what the source teaches about dislodgement as a time-critical event. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Incidents, emergencies, records and review.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains dislodgement as a time-critical event, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M4-PEG-V2-Q4
4. Using Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways, explain what the source teaches about safe escalation and transfer-of-care information. Cite the exact timestamp or transcript section and connect it to Incidents, emergencies, records and review.
Response form: Short analysis with timestamp or transcript citation
Satisfactory benchmark: Accurately explains safe escalation and transfer-of-care information, identifies the source location and makes a relevant module connection without inventing content.
PEG-M4-PEG-V2-Q5
5. Identify one action shown or described in Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways that protects the person's rights, dignity or involvement. Explain how a worker would demonstrate it in practice.
Response form: Applied response with source reference
Satisfactory benchmark: Uses a genuine example from the media and translates it into observable, person-centred worker behaviour.
PEG-M4-PEG-V2-Q6
6. Identify one risk, omission or system weakness raised by Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways. State the safe control and who is responsible for action.
Response form: Risk analysis
Satisfactory benchmark: Names a source-based risk, selects a proportionate control and assigns responsibility without shifting blame to the person receiving support.
PEG-M4-PEG-V2-Q7Critical safety question
7. Compare the media with this module's critical safety boundary: Attempting untrained tube reinsertion, clearing or regime changes is a critical failure. Where do they reinforce each other?
Response form: Comparative analysis
Satisfactory benchmark: Makes a defensible comparison using evidence from both the media and the module boundary.
PEG-M4-PEG-V2-Q8Critical safety question
8. A key condition changes immediately after the situation shown in Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways. Explain the first safe action, the stop point and the escalation pathway.
Response form: Changed-condition scenario
Satisfactory benchmark: Does not guess or work beyond role; identifies immediate safety, stopping and human escalation actions.
PEG-M4-PEG-V2-Q9
9. Write the objective Smiling Monad app record that should follow the event in Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways. Include only necessary information and identify the correct audience.
Response form: Professional record
Satisfactory benchmark: Record is timely, factual, relevant, privacy-aware and directed only to people who need the information.
PEG-M4-PEG-V2-Q10Critical safety question
10. State one limitation of Gastrostomy tubes clinical tool and complication pathways. What current plan, policy, clinical instruction, law or supervised assessment must also be checked before practice?
Response form: Source evaluation
Satisfactory benchmark: Recognises that external media is not participant-specific authority and names an appropriate controlling source.
7 extended knowledge and application questions
PEG-M4-K1
1. What actions are outside a general support worker's role? Give the rule, explain why it matters, then apply it to a realistic changed situation.
Response form: Extended applied response
Satisfactory benchmark: Answer is accurate, explains reasoning and applies the principle without exceeding worker role or authority.
PEG-M4-K2
2. What evidence and information should be preserved? Give the rule, explain why it matters, then apply it to a realistic changed situation.
Response form: Extended applied response
Satisfactory benchmark: Answer is accurate, explains reasoning and applies the principle without exceeding worker role or authority.
PEG-M4-K3Critical safety question
3. What should be reviewed after an incident? Give the rule, explain why it matters, then apply it to a realistic changed situation.
Response form: Extended applied response
Satisfactory benchmark: Answer is accurate, explains reasoning and applies the principle without exceeding worker role or authority.
PEG-M4-S1Critical safety question
4. Construct a safe decision pathway for a routine situation, then revise it when consent is withdrawn or communication becomes unclear.
Response form: Decision pathway
Satisfactory benchmark: Respects the person's decision, preserves immediate safety and uses the correct clarification or escalation pathway.
PEG-M4-S2
5. Analyse a near miss relevant to this module using person, task, environment, equipment, communication and system factors. Propose controls and review triggers.
Response form: Near-miss analysis
Satisfactory benchmark: Analysis is systems-based, non-blaming, proportionate and includes responsibility and review.
PEG-M4-S3Critical safety question
6. Explain what a competent worker would say to a participant, family member and supervisor when the requested action is outside the worker's competence or authority.
Response form: Professional communication
Satisfactory benchmark: Communication is calm, respectful, transparent about limits and offers a safe next step.
PEG-M4-S4
7. Design one observation checklist for a human assessor. Separate observable performance, knowledge questions, critical failures and evidence-authenticity checks.
Response form: Assessment design task
Satisfactory benchmark: Checklist produces valid observable evidence and does not infer practical competence from written answers alone.
Practice activities
- Complete timed simulations for suspected displacement, feed intolerance and equipment failure.
- Prepare a post-incident review contribution.
Real app practice
Create an urgent escalation, incident record and next-shift handover while limiting sensitive information to the authorised team.
Module evidence checklist
- • Identity-confirmed learner activity log showing actual start, finish and active participation.
- • Completed guided notes and glossary rather than an opened-page timer.
- • Video completion record with title, provider, access date, duration and timestamped or transcript-linked annotations.
- • All video-linked questions answered from the assigned media; generic answers without source evidence are not satisfactory.
- • Applied scenario responses showing reasoning, changed-condition decisions and correction of unsafe answers.
- • Module app-practice artefact using fictional, approved or appropriately de-identified information.
- • Human feedback, learner correction record and declaration of current competence limits.
Critical safety boundary: Attempting untrained tube reinsertion, clearing or regime changes is a critical failure.
Undergraduate certifier review controls
Course-wide academic and assessment decision rules
- 01.Allocated hours are planned learning time, not automatic credit. Time is accepted only when the required evidence demonstrates active participation.
- 02.Every video-linked response must identify the assigned source and cite a timestamp or transcript section. Unsupported generic answers are returned for further evidence.
- 03.Learners must achieve at least 80 percent across non-critical knowledge items and 100 percent on critical safety questions.
- 04.A critical unsafe answer triggers targeted relearning and a new attempt. It cannot be averaged out by stronger answers elsewhere.
- 05.Written and video learning never replace direct practical observation where the course assessment requires performance.
- 06.Media and external eLearning remain the intellectual property of their providers and are linked, not copied. The exact item, version and access date are recorded.
- 07.The human assessor or certifier confirms source currency, accessibility, answer-key adequacy, assessment validity and any nationally recognised or clinical authority claim.
Complete assessment instruments and marking benchmarks
Assessment suite
PEG-A1 · Twenty-five questions and four plan-based scenarios
Enteral support knowledge and plan decisions
Learner must provide
- At least 80 percent overall
- All tube, respiratory, infection and emergency critical questions correct
- Accurate identification of scope and stop points
Satisfactory benchmark
- Explains participant involvement and plan authority.
- Identifies preparation, infection, equipment and observation requirements.
- Stops and escalates every critical scenario.
- Does not invent clinical troubleshooting or treatment.
Critical failures
- Recommends proceeding without the current individual plan.
- Continues feeding after a critical concern.
- Suggests untrained reinsertion, clearing or regime alteration.
Assessment conditions
- Protected questions
- Current official descriptor checked by assessor
- Oral or AAC responses allowed with authenticity verification
PEG-A2 · Direct observation using training equipment and simulated products
Three complete simulated enteral-support sequences
Learner must provide
- Preparation and plan checks
- Three complete plan-based sequences
- Responses to at least two embedded problems
- Records, handover and equipment reset
Satisfactory benchmark
- Follows each supplied plan without omission or improvisation.
- Uses hygiene and equipment checks consistently.
- Observes the person and responds to cues promptly.
- Completes accurate records and escalation.
Critical failures
- Uses real formula, medication or invasive contact outside an approved assessment.
- Misses a critical stop cue.
- Uses unsafe or contaminated equipment.
Assessment conditions
- Simulation equipment reflecting workplace conditions
- No live invasive procedure
- Assessor with relevant enteral support competence
PEG-A3 · Qualified training, supervised demonstration and professional conversation
Participant-specific practical competence
Learner must provide
- Explains the actual plan and participant preferences
- Demonstrates the authorised procedure with actual equipment
- Responds to trainer questions about risks and emergencies
- Receives scope-limited sign-off and review date
Satisfactory benchmark
- Performs each required action safely and consistently.
- Recognises the participant's individual normal presentation and stop signs.
- Uses correct escalation and backup arrangements.
- Does not claim competence beyond the observed procedure.
Critical failures
- Cannot explain or follow the participant's plan.
- Misses a critical observation or emergency trigger.
- Performs an unapproved or unobserved procedure.
Assessment conditions
- Participant consent
- Appropriately qualified health practitioner or person meeting the descriptor
- Current plan, equipment and emergency resources
Final decision rules
- All theory and simulation assessments must be satisfactory before participant-specific practice.
- Participant-specific competence is limited to the observed person, plan, method and equipment.
- Critical failures require further learning and a completely new observed attempt.
- CHCDIS023 or CHCSS00128 outcomes require authorised RTO assessment of all official requirements and prerequisites.
Quality controls
- Current official source check before every release and at least annually.
- Human clinical, vocational or WHS review appropriate to the subject before live delivery.
- Participant and lived-experience review of language, dignity, accessibility and realism.
- Pre-use assessment validation before an RTO or recognised outcome is claimed.
- Post-use validation using a risk-based sample of learner evidence and assessor decisions.
- Version-controlled learner, assessor, mapping, answer and evidence documents.
- AI may teach, adapt and provide formative practice but cannot make the final assessment decision.
- Critical safety failures cannot be averaged out by scores from other tasks.
- Reasonable adjustment may change the method but not remove essential practical performance.
- Real participant information is not used in practice unless lawful, consented, necessary and securely handled.
Official alignment and verification
Course mapping and authoritative media are evidence and partnership tools. They do not themselves create an RTO result or clinical authority. The responsible human certifier must verify the current official source, the selected media, the answer benchmarks and practical evidence before approving delivery.
Controlled package: docs/school/specialist/SM_PEG_001_COMPLETE_COURSE_PACKAGE.md