Guide_to_Academic_Procedur

Document Sample
Guide_to_Academic_Procedur Powered By Docstoc
					       Guide to Quality Assurance Procedures (GAP)

                           Part 2

  Approval, Review and Re-approval of Programmes
               and Modules of Study

        Faculty of Health, Birmingham City University




                                                        1
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
1.0            Introduction

This document the Guide to Academic Procedures (GAP) part 2 has been prepared to
provide advice, guidance and support for academic and administration staff in the Faculty of
Health in relation to;

     Communicating with Professional / Statutory and Regulatory Bodies relating to
      programmes and modules of study offered by the Faculty of Health;

     Approval, Review and Re-approval of programmes of study;

     Changes to programmes and modules of study;

     Annual Programme Monitoring Reports;

     Peer Reviews;

     Guidelines, policies, procedures and pro-forma to be used can be found in the relevant
      annexe within this document or on the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance
      website;

GAP Part 2 should be viewed together with GAP Part 1. GAP Part 1 provides other Faculty
of Health Quality assurance monitoring and enhancement Policies, Procedures and
guidance which reflect the University Policies and Procedures, and / or PSRB standards and
requirements.

GAP Part 2 takes into account the University regulations, University Quality Assurance
Handbook, precepts and guidance of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
(QAA), and Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body standards and requirements. This
document should also be read in conjunction with the University’s Academic Policies and
Procedures and University Quality Assurance Handbook.

The quality assurance, monitoring and enhancement strategies within this document apply to
all programmes delivered across the Faculty of Health.

The strategies also apply to organisations that have programmes / modules accredited and
approved through articulation arrangements, flexible and work based learning, franchise and
collaborative provision. However, there are also specific University Policies and Procedures
to be followed and the Director of Academic Quality and Director of Continuing Professional
Development will provide staff with specific advice and guidance in relation to the relevant
policies, procedures and documentation that must be completed and the processes to follow
when programmes are run via these arrangements.

1.2       Quality Monitoring and Enhancement

This document will be reviewed annually by the Associate Dean (Academic Development
and Quality Enhancement) and the Director of Academic Quality. Any amendments will
comply with University regulations, the University Quality Assurance Handbook,
Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body standards, precepts and guidance of the
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). Where amendments are made GAP
2 will be presented to the Faculty Academic Standards and Quality Enhancement Committee
(FASQEC) for review and approval in principle and further presented to Faculty Board for
approval and implementation in the Faculty of Health.



                                                                                          2
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Policies and procedures in GAP 1 are reviewed and updated by working groups arranged by
the Quality Support Manager in agreement with the Associate Dean (Academic
Development and Quality Enhancement) and / or Director of Academic Quality. Where new
or amended policies / procedures / guidance are developed they will be presented to
FASQEC for review and approval in principle and further presented to Faculty Board for
approval for implementation in the Faculty of Health.

If you require any assistance or support with any aspects of this document or any quality
assurance, monitoring or enhancement policies / procedures / guidance please contact the
relevant member of staff who can be found one of the following members of staff;

Marion Thompson – Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement)

Barbara Nugent - Director of Academic Quality

Walter Riggans - Quality Support Manager.

Tessa Clarke – Academic Quality Support Officer

Jane Binks – Senior Quality Project Officer

Beryl Clay – Quality Manager Placements

Synopsis of Faculty of Health Quality Assurance Procedures

This section provides a synopsis of events in the Faculty of Health for quality assurance,
monitoring and enhancement in relation to Programmes and Modules of Study.

Events                                                                 Action

Communicating with Professional / Statutory / Regulatory Bodies        Director of Academic
(PSRBs) in relation to Programmes and modules of study                 Quality
                                                                       Quality Support
                                                                       Manager
                                                                       Academic Quality
                                                                       Support Officer
                                                                       Senior Quality
                                                                       Project Officer

GAP 1 reviewed and updated in communication with the Associate Quality Support
Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) and Director Manager
of Academic Quality to comply with University and PSRB Regulations
and Standards.

GAP 2 reviewed and updated in communication with the Associate Director of Academic
Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) to comply Quality
with University and PSRB Regulations and Standards.

GAP to be approved for implementation in the Faculty of Health by Chair of Faculty
Faculty Board.                                                    Board

Electronic copy of GAP 1 and 2 to be placed on the Centre for          Quality Support
Academic Quality and Governance website. Programme Directors to be     Manager
informed.                                                              Programme
Students to be informed of the location of GAP 1 and GAP 2.            Directors

                                                                                         3
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Programme of Approval, Review and Re-Approval events to be Chair of Faculty
communicated to Faculty Board and approved by Pro-Vice-Chancellor Board / Executive
as part of Faculty plan.                                          Dean / Pro Vice
                                                                  Chancellor
Approval, Review and Re-approval Panels:

Briefing pack for panel members reviewed annually.                      Director of Academic
                                                                        Quality

Prior to Approval, Review and Re-Approval Events

Panel Chairs identified for panel meetings                              Associate Dean
                                                                        (Academic
                                                                        Development and
                                                                        Quality
                                                                        Enhancement)

Panel Chairs names and programmes sent to University Academic Academic Quality
Registrar for approval                                        Support Officer
                                                              University Academic
                                                              Registrar

Panel members nominated / domestic arrangements made.                   Programme Director
                                                                        Director of Academic
Preliminary paper developed.                                            Quality
Resource paper developed.

Preliminary paper and resource paper approved to be sent to the Panel Associate Dean
Chair.                                                                (Academic
                                                                      Development and
                                                                      Quality
                                                                      Enhancement) /
                                                                      Academic Quality
                                                                      Support Officer
                                                                       / Director of
                                                                      Academic Quality

Preliminary meeting arranged with Chair                                 Academic Quality
                                                                        Support Officer in
                                                                        consultation with
                                                                        Associate Dean
                                                                        (Academic
                                                                        Development and
                                                                        Quality
                                                                        Enhancement) /
                                                                        Director of Academic
                                                                        Quality

Preliminary paper and resource paper sent to the Chair and University   Academic      Quality
representative.                                                         Support Officer


For review and re-approval of a programme arrangements made for Programme Director
students to meet with Chair                                     Academic Quality

                                                                                         4
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                        Support Officer in
                                                                        consultation with
                                                                        Director of Academic
                                                                        Quality

Time lines for submission of draft documentation in hard copy sent to Academic Quality
programme director and Head of Department                             Support Officer /
                                                                      Director of Academic
                                                                      Quality

Review of documentation and meeting to discuss any required changes     Programme Director
                                                                        / Director of
                                                                        Academic Quality /
                                                                        Head of Department

Definitive documents approved by Head of School and submitted in Head of School
requested format with proforma

Definitive documents approved by Director of Academic Quality on Director of Academic
behalf of Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Quality
Enhancement) and copies prepared for panel members and the
programme team.

Documents and Briefing Pack sent to panel members a minimum of          Director of Academic
three weeks prior to the meeting [PSRBs have different requirements].   Quality / Academic
                                                                        Quality Support
                                                                        Officer

Comments from panel to be returned to the Centre for Academic Director of Academic
Quality and Governance prior to meeting and circulated to other panel Quality / Academic
members and key members of programme team.                            Quality Support
                                                                      Officer
During/After Approval, Review and Re-Approval Event

Panel meeting recorded and summary of any Essential action points, Academic Quality
Essential documentary changes and recommendations to the Support Officer
programme team sent to Chair for confirmation

Confirmed summary of Essential action points, Essential documentary     Director of Academic
changes and recommendations immediately circulated to Associate         Quality / Academic
Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement), Head of            Quality Support
Department and Programme Director.                                      Officer

Draft report of panel meeting circulated to panel members and key       Director of Academic
members of programme team / Executive Dean / Associate Dean             Quality / Quality
(Academic Development and Quality Enhancement), Head of                 Academic Quality
Department for approval. Date set for comments.                         Support Officer


Comments incorporated into amended report which is confirmed by Director of Academic
Chair and sent to Faculty Board for approval.                   Quality / Chair
                                                                Faculty Board

Evidence of compliance with Essential action points, Essential Programme Team /
documentary changes documented and sent to Centre for Academic Director of Academic

                                                                                        5
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Quality and Governance for recording before being forwarded to Chair Quality
(if Chair’s action required).

Approved report submitted to Senate with form signed by Chair             Director of Academic
confirming that conditions have been met.                                 Quality / QA Officer /
                                                                          Panel Chair

When programme approved by Senate, the student handbook is Quality Support
published on the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance web Manager
site

Completion of any recommendations identified in the approval / re- Programme Team /
approval panel must be demonstrated in the next annual programme Director of Academic
report.                                                            Quality

Annual Programme Monitoring Report forms sent out to Programme Director of Academic
Directors.                                                     Quality

Annual Programme Reports collated and reviewed.                           Director of Academic
                                                                          Quality

Annual Faculty Overview Monitoring Report drafted for presentation to Quality Support
Faculty Board.                                                        Manager

Annual Faculty Overview Monitoring Report to be approved by Faculty Chair of Faculty
Board for presentation to Senate.                                   Board


2.0       Communicating with Professional / Statutory / Regulatory Bodies

The Faculty of Health has a Code of Practice for communicating with Professional / Statutory
/ Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) in relation to programmes and modules of study to ensure
there is consistency in our approach to communication and all staff must comply with the
Code (annex 1).

All verbal and written communication and any documentation must come through the Centre
for Academic Quality and Governance in the first instance and this will be forwarded onto the
relevant PSRB on behalf of the School / Department or Programme team. Any
communication required with a PSRB outside of the Code of Practice must be agreed with
the Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) or nominee.

Where a Professional / Statutory / Regulatory Body communicates directly with a member of
academic staff in relation to a programme or modules of study the Centre for Academic
Quality and Governance must be informed and the process of communication identified in
the Code of Practice will take place.

Where PSRBs are to visit the Faculty of Health in relation to Approval, Review / Re-approval
or quality monitoring of a programme of study the Centre for Academic Quality and
Governance must be informed, as the date and purpose of the visit must be communicated
to the Executive Dean, Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement)
and Senate.

PSRBs that normally have involvement with Programmes of Study in the Faculty of Health
can be found in annex 2.


                                                                                            6
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
3.0       New Programme Proposals

Proposals for new programme development are normally discussed at the Faculty Executive
Committee in relation to the Faculty plan. A schedule of reviews / re-approvals and
approvals are communicated to Faculty Board and the Pro Vice Chancellor.

Plans for new programmes should be indicated early to enable strategic decisions to be
made in respect of resources. Any proposals would be expected to be consistent with the
Faculty Plan and its financial obligations.

3.1       Protocol for New Programme Developments

3.1.1     Initial Exploration / Discussions

Initial discussions should be with the Head of School / Head of Department and the
Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) in order that the
availability of resources, such as learning resources, and placements, the Head of Library
Liaison (Enquiry Services) should also be alerted at this stage.

Once agreed, a Programme Development Form (Annex 3) must be completed by the Head
of Department and approved by the Head of School. which 'makes the case' for the
programme or programmes, including any market research which has been undertaken and
any preliminary discussions with any potential commissioners / purchasers.

The completed Programme Development Form must be sent to the Associate Dean
(Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) who will present the proposal to the
Faculty Executive Committee. The outcome may be approve / request more information / not
approved. Only when the Executive Dean has approved the proposal can it be included in
the Faculty Plan.

3.1.2     University Internal Scrutiny Group

An Internal Scrutiny Group form must be completed for all new University programmes with
awards. The ISG form is available on the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance
website.

Advice on completing the ISG can be obtained from the Faculty of Health Financial
Controller Office.

For changes in titles of awards and additional pathways in existing programmes a more
concise ISG must be completed (annex 4).

The University’s Internal Scrutiny Group considers on behalf of the Pro Vice Chancellor, the
forward plans for faculties for new developments and that resources needed are available.

Where programme directors wish The completed ISG proforma must be sent to the Centre
for Academic Quality and Governance for review and once agreed by the Associate Dean
(Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) it will be forwarded to the clerk of the
ISG who will communicate the decision of the group to the Associate Dean (Academic
Development and Quality Enhancement), and the Head of School will be informed.

Formal tenders for external contracts for programme provision are prepared in consultation
with the Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) and / or the


                                                                                          7
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Associate Dean (Business, Innovation, Marketing and Admissions) and approved by the
Executive Dean.

3.1.3     Implementation of Approval Process

When a new development is approved by the Executive Dean, the timetable for the approval
process is set by the Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) in
consultation with the Director of Academic Quality who will communicate with the Head of
School / Head of Department and Programme Director.

4.0       Approval, Review and Re-approval Procedures for Programmes of Study

This section covers the process for the approval of new programmes of study, and review
and re-approval of existing programmes in the Faculty of Health. It is intended to provide an
explanation of what is required and when it is required at each stage and who is responsible
for each part of the process. It is not a substitute for the University Academic Policies and
Procedures or University Quality Assurance Handbook or for the support and advice from
staff in the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance or from colleagues who have
already gone through the process.

The process of approval, review and re-approval is one of peer review by an appropriately
selected panel.

4.1       Aims of Approval, Review and Re-approval

The University has detailed procedures to ensure that programmes of study designed to lead
to an academic award of a specified level conform to the University's Statement of Purpose
and meets the University's requirements for that award.

The aims of approval, review and re-approval include:

4.1.1     secure for students a high quality educational and academic experience, their most
          important functions being to assess the quality and standards of programmes of
          study with a view to maintaining and where possible enhancing the standards of the
          University's awards;

4.1.2     stimulate curriculum development by requiring staff to evaluate their programmes of
          study and to expose them to the thinking and practices of external peers;

4.1.3     ensure that programmes of study reflect the University's and Faculty’s Educational
          Character and Mission Statement;

4.1.4     ensure that once a programme of study has been approved, any conditions of approval
          have been implemented, and that any recommendations arising from the approval,
          review and re-approval process are fully considered and appropriate action taken;

4.1.5     the design of each programme takes account of any external reference points,
          including the National Qualifications Framework, the QAA Code of Practice and
          relevant Subject Benchmarks;

4.1.6     where appropriate, ensure that programmes comply with any Professional, Statutory
          and Regulatory Body (PSRB) standards and requirements;




                                                                                           8
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
4.2 Objectives of approval, review and re-approval

The approval should ensure that:

4.2.1     each programme of study meets the University's requirements for the relevant award
          and that the standards set are appropriate to the award;

4.2.2     learning resources are available and the environment within which each programme
          will operate are satisfactory;

4.2.3     the standards and quality of teaching in the subject are at least maintained and, where
          possible, enhanced;

4.2.4     the proposed delivery methods are appropriate and that, where reliance is placed upon
          electronic means of delivery, appropriate arrangements are in place to ensure the
          continued suitability and availability of the system;

4.2.5     the assessment strategy is appropriate having regard to the level of the programme,
          the organisation of the curriculum and the need for students to reflect on their learning
          before being assessed; and that the range and types of assessments to be used will
          allow students to demonstrate their achievement of the intended learning outcomes;

4.2.6     no programme of study is offered or continues to operate without adequate staffing and
          other resources;

4.2.7     the University's documentation requirements have been met;

4.3 Additional Considerations for Review

In addition to the objectives which are shared with the initial approval, a review should
evaluate the success of the programme of study. The review of each programme should
include consideration of:

4.3.1     the findings derived from the annual monitoring of the programme;

4.3.2    statistics for student admissions, retention and progression

4.3.3    reports from Boards of Studies

4.3.4    the quality of the programme of study in operation as demonstrated by the
         performance of students and the reports of the external examiners;

4.3.5    the findings derived from any evaluation of the programme conducted by an Internal
         academic audit, a professional / statutory / regulatory body, or other external body;

4.3.6    the extent to which staff have engaged in relevant scholarly and professional activities;

4.3.7    the outcomes of the process of evaluation in which the team have been engaged;

4.3.8    the results of any evaluation of the programme by students including meetings / action
         plans from Quality days;

4.3.9    the results of any evaluation of the programme by employers;


                                                                                                 9
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
4.3.10 the rationale for any changes that had been made since approval / re-approval or the
       last review, and of any plans for further change;

5.0       Approval

This is the process by which a judgement is reached by a panel as to whether a proposed
new programme of study leading to an academic award of the University conforms to the
University’s Educational Character and Mission, meets the University regulations and
academic standards and is consistent with the relevant QAA subject benchmarks and
precepts.

Approval is also the outcome of the process where a programme of study has been judged
to meet the University’s requirements, and where relevant PSRB standards. It is the formal
act of the University acting as an approval body whether in respect of its own programmes of
study or those offered by a partner institution. Decisions are made by Senate on behalf of
the University.

5.1       Review and Re-approval

This is the process whereby the progress and operation of an existing programme is critically
appraised and any plans for changes are considered, in order to confirm that the programme
continues to meet the University's requirements for an award at that level, and where
relevant continues to meet PSRB standards.

5.1      Approval Period

The normal university approval period (“indefinite approval”) is for six years. Senate may
decide that a programme should have a shorter approval period.

5.1.1     Professional / Statutory / Regulatory Bodies

Professional / Regulatory Bodies namely General Social Care Council, Health Professions
Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council may have open ended approval or shorter approval
periods when meeting their standards / proficiencies. They may also ask for a review or re-
approval of a programme earlier if there has been an impact on their standards or
proficiencies.

6.0       Criteria for the Approval, Review and Re-approval of Programmes

A panel must be established to consider and make recommendations to the Senate
regarding the approval or review and re-approval of a programme or group of programmes
which lead to an award or awards of the University.

A new Programme of Study or one at the end of its approval period must not be offered until
it has been approved or re-approved at the appropriate point by Senate. This necessitates
sufficient lead time within the approval, review and re-approval process to ensure that all the
stages of the process, including report approval, can be completed in time for the
appropriate Senate meeting.

Each academic year Academic Registry is provided with a schedule of approvals, review and
re-approvals, the schedule is approved by Faculty Board.




                                                                                            10
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
6.0       Academic Planning

The following indicates the range of issues which should be considered during the approval
or review process. The extent to which particular matters will need emphasis in the process
will vary with circumstances and should be decided by the panel.

There are specific aspects of the context within which a particular programme of study will
be offered which should be taken into consideration when it is approved or reviewed. These
will include the consideration of:

6.1.1     the location of the programme within the Faculty’s academic plan, policies and
          strategies;

6.1.2     the existence of programmes in related fields or disciplines, and whether there is or will
          be competition for resources which might have an adverse impact on the programme;

6.1.3     where common teaching with other programmes is intended;

6.1.4     where the programme is to be offered part-time or by distance learning or by other
          forms of learning, the arrangements for student support including access to the
          University's facilities and services;

6.1       Resources

The approval / re-approval panel must be satisfied that the programme of study will be
adequately resourced. The following factors should be taken into account:-

6.1.1    the quality of the staff, their qualifications and experience and the calibre of leadership
         at all levels should be satisfactory;

6.1.2    the team should, as a group, demonstrate a commitment to personal academic and
         professional development; and engage in a variety of scholarly and professional
         activities appropriate to their subject specialism, with a view to maintaining and
         updating their expertise and teaching skills;

6.1.3    the Faculty should have policies to support and develop the activities described above;

6.1.4    teaching staff should be adequate in number and appropriately qualified for the
         learning outcomes of the programme of study to be fulfilled;

6.1.5    the resources needed to sustain the programme of study such as library, computer
         provision, skills and specialist equipment

7.0      Approval, Review and Re-Approval

7.1      Panel Chair

The Academic Quality Support Officer will compile a list of proposed Chairs for the Approval,
Review and Re-Approval Panels in discussion with the Associate Dean (Academic
Development and Quality Enhancement).

The completed list of Chairs will be sent to the University Academic Registrar for
consideration and approval. Once an agreement has been reached the Chair will be



                                                                                                 11
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
contacted and appointed early in the approval, review and re-approval process (See 16.2.1
for Role of Chair).

7.2       Date of the Panel Event

The Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) and Director of
Academic Quality will negotiate a panel event date with the Programme Director / Head of
Department / Head of School and Chair.

7.3       The Panel

In order to fulfil the aims and objectives of approval, review and re-approval, a panel needs
to include members with a range of knowledge and expertise. The composition of each
panel should be approved by the Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality
Enhancement). The ultimate responsibility lies with the Executive Dean in ensuring that the
panel fulfils the relevant University Regulations.

The specific roles of panel members are detailed in section 16. A typical panel would consist
of:

         The Chair - an experienced Birmingham City University panel member from outside
          the Faculty who has not been involved with the development of the programme being
          approved, reviewed or re-approved;

         A University representative - from another Faculty ideally with experience in the
          approval, review and re-approval process, especially of modular programmes within
          similar schemes as that of the Faculty of Health;

         A Faculty representative - an experienced academic from another Department;

         Two external academic advisers* - from another academic institution with specific
          expertise in the field under discussion; no approval or review and re-approval panel
          can take place without the attendance of at least one external academic adviser;

         Two external practitioner advisers* - from the field of practice under discussion;

*External Advisers must not be or have been within the last five years, an external examiner to a programme
offered by the Department proposing the current programme and should normally be drawn from the Higher
Education sector outside a 50 mile radius. They must not have had any significant teaching involvement in any
programme or be closely associated with the current programme, or one from which the current programme has
evolved. Nominations are sought from the programme team for the two external academic and two external
practitioners. The names and contact details of the external advisors must be sent to Academic Quality Support
Officer 12 weeks prior to the panel event.

         Conjoint approval, review and re-approval with a PSRB will necessitate inclusion of
          additional panel member(s) from the relevant body.

For review and re-approval panels ex-student(s) of the programme are invited to contribute.

Observers - up to two observers may attend a panel meeting to enhance staff development.
The attendance of observers must be agreed with the Chair and the Associate Dean
(Academic Development and Quality Enhancement). Details of each person should be given
to the Director of Academic Quality for inclusion in the briefing pack, at least six weeks prior
to the panel meeting.



                                                                                                           12
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
7.3.1         Programme Team

The Centre for Academic Quality and Governance maintains a database of the names and
Curriculum Vitae (CV) of academic staff and these will be sent to panel members.

There should also be a user representative invited to the Panel event. This should be a user
who has been involved in the development of the programme. The name and contact details
must be sent to Academic Quality Support Officer 12 weeks prior to the panel meeting.

7.3.2       Professional / Statutory / Regulatory Bodies

Where professional / statutory or regulatory bodies are involved, the appropriate body plays
a part in the process, which is then termed conjoint approval, review and re-approval.

Depending on the role of the PSRB they either approve that a programme of study has met
their standards and proficiencies or accredit a programme.

The Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) or nominee usually
acts as official correspondents for the Faculty and liaises with the relevant PSRB on the
following points:

           The time-scale of events;
           The number of representatives required on the panel and their details;
           Acceptance of the Faculty’s approval, review and re-approval procedures including
            the need for a University Chair;
           Whether approval, review and re-approval will be conjoint or sequential;

The PSRBs ‘Visitor Request’ form will be sent by the Centre for Academic Quality and
Governance requesting a panel event.

8.0         Documentation and Meetings required prior to the Panel Event

There are two papers that the Programme Director must complete for the Chair prior to the
Panel event;

          1. Preliminary Paper which is a briefing paper on the programme proposal;

          2. Resource Paper and any associated information on resources;

8.1         Preliminary and Resource Papers

The headings / proforma to be used and the guidance for completing the Preliminary Paper
and Resource Paper can be found in annex 5 and annex 6. There should also be a
diagrammatical representation of the programme in the preliminary paper;

The completed preliminary and resource papers will be reviewed by the Director of
Academic who may request amendments or clarification of points. The Head of Department
must approve the preliminary and resource papers and they must be returned electronically
to the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance stating they are the definitive papers.

The Executive Dean will be asked to sign the resource paper. The preliminary paper and
resource paper will then be sent to the Chair of the panel. It will also be included in the
briefing pack sent to those attending the panel meeting.



                                                                                          13
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
8.1.1     Preliminary Meeting

The preliminary meeting has several purposes. It should:

         enable the Chair to ascertain that the proposal is feasible and fully supported by the
          faculty, and that the faculty has assessed its resource needs and will be able to
          provide sufficient resources to support it;

         provide an opportunity to agree on panel membership, the format of the event and
          the administrative arrangements;

The timescale, dates and details of the approval, review and re-approval process including
those relating to documentation required and the size of the panel are also discussed within
a typical agenda (annex 7).

The Programme Director / Head of School / Head of Department should be prepared to
answer any questions asked by the Chair in response to the preliminary and resourced
paper.

9.1.2      Meeting with Students

Where a programme of study is put forward for review / re-approval the Chair will meet with
current students and a report will be produced from the meeting. This report will be made
available for members of the Panel.

It is the Programme Directors responsibility to arrange for a group of current students to
meet with the Chair of the Panel, this will be in liaison with Academic Quality Support Officer.
Students should be included as representatives of all students currently on the programme.
There should always be representation of students from each year of the programme, and
from branches / pathways where relevant.

The Academic Quality Support Officer will send students the areas that the Chair and
University representative will discuss with them which can be found in annex 8.

This meeting usually takes place on a convenient date prior to the panel meeting but may be
incorporated into the panel agenda and involve panel members, particularly where PSRB
involvement requires it.

10.0      Programme Documents

The Centre for Academic Quality and Governance will communicate specific time lines for
submission of draft and definitive documents (annex 9). The time lines will be defined from
the agreed Panel date and any PSRB requirements for submission of documentation.

10.1      Preparation of Documents for Approval, Review and Re-approval Panels

Programme Directors are strongly recommended to refer to the guidance on preparation of
documents which is available on the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance website.

Hard copies of all draft documents should be sent to the Director of Academic Quality
adhering to the set time lines.

The draft documents are checked for presentation and content by the Director of Academic
Quality in communication with the Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality


                                                                                               14
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Enhancement), and a meeting will be arranged with the Programme Director and Head of
Department to feedback on the need for any amendments in the documentation.

The Director of Academic Quality may ask to review the documents again.

Once all the documents have been agreed it is the Head of School who will sign the
proforma (annex 10) stating that they approve the documents to be put forward for review by
panel members.

Definitive documents required for Panel members must be submitted as;

      one hard copy of each document brought to the Centre for Academic Quality and
       Governance with the Proforma signed by the Head of School / Head of Department
       confirming they are the definitive documents;

      one electronic copy of each document in a zip file sent to the Academic Quality
       Support Officer;

The documents required for approval, or review and re-approval of programmes of study are
prepared by the programme team, and comprise of the following:

10.1.1      in the case of reviews / re-approvals a critical review document must be produced;

10.1.2      curriculum vitae of all teaching and learning staff who contribute to the programme;

10.1.3      student programme handbook;

10.1.4      completed module Templates which are normally provided as an appendices in the
            student programme handbook;

10.1.5      additional appendices will be included where relevant such as, mapping of modules
            of study against QAA benchmarks and academic level descriptors, National
            Occupational Standards, PSRB standards / proficiencies, Faculty of Health
            mapping criteria, KSFs (where relevant);

10.1.6      Module Study Guides;

10.1.7      Practice placement documents (where students undertake placement learning to
            achieve competences / standards the student programme handbook must also
            demonstrate how the QAA precepts for placement and work based learning are
            met);

10.1.8      Mentor / Practice Teacher / Practice Assessor Handbook;

10.1.9      Placement audit document;

10.1.10 Programme Specifications;

10.1.11 Any supplementary documents that may be required by a PSRB or deemed to be
        appropriate by the Programme Team. Additional guidance may be sought from the
        Director of Academic Quality;

No documents should be tabled at a Panel event as panel members must have sufficient
time to be able to read the documents and provide comments to the programme team.

                                                                                              15
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
10.2      Critical Review Document

The critical review evaluates of the operation of the programme over the period of review.
The critical review analyses the performance of the programme in terms of an evaluation by
the team, students, employers, and external examiners where relevant. It should also
include statistical data on recruitment, student characteristics (age, gender and ethnicity);
performance; progression and destinations, as well as the rationale for changes which
support the new programme. In addition the critical review must demonstrate how the
principles of RoLEx have been implemented into the programme (annex 11 provides the
suggested headings and appendices for the document).

10.2.1 Definitive Student Handbook

The Student Handbook will act as the definitive programme document for approval events.

The Student Handbook Template, together with the supplementary design and further
guidance about the information that should be included in the student handbook are
available on the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance web site;

10.2.2      Module Templates and Module Study Guides

The current University Module Outline Template and guidance must be used to describe
each module and included as an appendix in the handbook are available on the Centre for
Academic Quality and Governance web site;

The Faculty of Health has approved the implementation of Module Study Guides which are
used alongside the University Standard Module Template. Module Study Guides are an aid
designed to assist students with their learning. It provides consistency, support; structure
and direction for learning, indicating to students how they can best organise and focus on
their learning. Module Study Guides must be provided for Panel members as a separate
document.

The Module Template and Module Study Guide templates can be found on the Centre for
Academic Quality and Governance website.

10.2.3 Exemptions from the Standard University Assessment Regulations

The Faculty of Health has exemptions from the Standard University Assessment Regulations
approved by Senate which are available on the Centre for Academic Quality and
Governance website. Where the programme team wish to seek an exemption for modules of
study this must be clearly stated in the Student Handbook.

10.2.4       Practice learning documents

Where students undertake placement learning to achieve competences / standards of
proficiency the student handbook must also demonstrate how the QAA precepts for work
based and placement learning are met;

The practice learning documents containing the competences / standards of proficiency
must also be submitted for the panel. These should set out a clear explanation of the
process and outcomes of practice learning.

All students who undertake placement learning must be allocated to a Mentor / Practice
Teacher / Practice Assessor / Supervisor who must be provided with a Handbook (the


                                                                                          16
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
template is available on the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance website)
explaining their roles and responsibilities in facilitating student placement learning
opportunities. This Handbook must also be submitted for review by the Panel.

All placement learning undertaken by students must be audited and panel members must be
provided with a copy of the placement audit document. (It is important to liaise with the
Department of Practice Learning (DPL) to ascertain if the placement has already been
audited);

10.2.5 Programme Specification

A programme specification in the University’s approved format is required for every
programme leading to a University award and for short non-award bearing courses. They
must be included with the documentation for the panel. The University template and
guidance for completion of programme specification can be found on the Centre for
Academic Quality and Governance website.

All approval and re-approval panels must be asked to make recommendations to Senate
regarding the approval of the programme specification. Programmes will not be permitted to
start until the programme specification has been approved.

Any changes to the programme specification subsequent to its approval must also be
accompanied by evidence of reference to external subject specialists and be processed
through the minor modifications procedure (Section 15).

All approved programme specifications are available on the Centre for Academic Quality and
Governance website.

10.2.6 Mapping documents

Professional / Statutory / Regulatory Bodies require explicit mapping against their standards
with additional evidence in some cases to demonstrate how they are met. It is the
programme team’s responsibility to complete the mapping against the standards and provide
the additional evidence which must be submitted with the panel documents.

Programme teams must also map against the relevant QAA benchmarks and academic level
descriptors, National Occupational Standards, Faculty of Health mapping criteria, and KSFs
(where relevant).

10.2.7 Curriculum Vitae

A separate document will include the programme teams Curriculum Vitae (CV) of staff who
has a major commitment in developing and teaching on the programme. It is the Head of
Departments responsibility to ensure that CVs are up to date, on the appropriate template
(annex 12) and sent to the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance at the beginning of
each academic year. CVs will be sent to Panel members.

10.2.8 Briefing Pack

For each approval meeting, a briefing pack is prepared and sent to each member of the
panel.




                                                                                          17
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
11.0      Statement of Compliance

A Statement of Compliance is required by some PSRBs which is a signed statement
between the University and a commissioning organisation confirming that there are sufficient
resources, in both academic and practice settings, to enable the programme to be effectively
delivered for the intended number of students. The Centre for Academic Quality and
Governance is responsible for ensuring the Statement of Compliance is signed by the Pro
Vice Chancellor (Academic) and signatory from the relevant commissioning organisation.
The Statement of Compliance will be made available to the PSRB representative at the
Panel meeting.

12.00 Comments from Panel Members

When the documents are sent to Panel members they are asked to send any comments
they may have for the Programme team to consider. As Panel members’ comments are
received by the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance they will be forwarded to the
Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) and Programme
Director. The Programme Director must discuss the comments with the programme team so
that they are prepared to discuss these issues and answer questions at the Panel meeting.

13.0      Meetings to Consider Proposals

13.1     Panel Meeting

Domestic arrangements for the panel meeting are made by the Centre for Academic Quality
and Governance and communicated to all members of the panel and key programme team
members within the briefing pack that is sent out with the programme documents within the
defined time line.

A typical agenda for the meeting would be:

         Brief presentation by programme team [15 minutes] outlining the proposal and
          incorporating responses to any comments received from panel members where
          appropriate;

         Private meeting of panel to set / confirm agenda and discuss any other relevant
          issues;

         Discussion between panel and full programme team;

         A tour of the facilities may be undertaken by the panel;
         Clerking of the meeting is undertaken by staff from the Centre for Academic Quality
          and Governance. If the panel splits into groups, each group is clerked separately.

12.2       Outcomes of the Panel Meeting

At the end of the meeting with the programme team, the panel holds a private meeting to
consider their decision in respect of a new programme to recommend to Senate one or more
of the following. That the programme be:

        approved unconditionally for an indefinite period subject to periodic review;

        approved for a shorter, specified period with the reasons for this being specified by
         the panel and resulting in the need to seek renewed approval at the end of the period;


                                                                                            18
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
        approved with conditions; these have to be carried out prior to the programme being
         approved by Faculty Board and Senate;

        referred back for further development;

The panel will also provide the team with;

        matters for consideration;
        good practice and innovation;

The decision is fed back to the programme team. If another panel meeting is necessary or if
conditions have been imposed, details are agreed as to how that will be managed.

The Chair may decide that Chair's action will be able to ascertain that the conditions have
been met or, if there are a number of complex conditions, involvement of other members of
the panel may be required, either in a meeting or at a distance.

The Programme Director and team work to meet any conditions as part of the approval,
review and re-approval process, and consider matters for consideration.

Evidence relating to the meeting of the conditions is considered by the panel Chair who will
decide whether or not a further panel meeting is required as agreed at the main panel
meeting.

If the Chair agrees that the conditions have been met a form is prepared by the Centre for
Academic Quality and Governance and signed by the Executive Dean to that effect, and is
forwarded to Senate with the confirmed report.

13.0      Action after the Panel Meeting

13.1      Outcome Summary

The secretary to the panel produces a summary of the outcomes of the meeting and,
following approval by the Chair of the panel, this is circulated to the Executive Dean, the
Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement), the Head of School
and the Programme Director.

13.2      Draft Report

The secretary to the panel produces a full report (see annexe 13). This is initially issued as
an 'Unconfirmed Report' to the Chair, the Programme Director, Associate Dean (Academic
Development and Quality Enhancement), Head of School and all External Academic
Advisors and PSRB representatives (if involved) in order that it can be checked for factual
accuracy. A date by which responses should be received should be indicated in the
accompanying letter.

13.2.1 Full Report

When deemed correct, the report is issued as a 'Confirmed Report' and submitted to Faculty
Board for approval.




                                                                                           19
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
13.3      Definitive Student Handbook

Changes required from the approval process are prepared by the programme team and
inserted into the Student Handbook Document. This document will be used for part of the
internal academic audit and referred to in Examination Board meetings.

The definitive student handbook is then distributed by the Academic Quality Support Officer
to the:

      Programme Director to be published on the Students Portal;
      Quality Support Manager to be published on the Centre for Academic Quality and
       Governance web site;

Copies are distributed by the Quality Support Manager to:

         Academic Registry – electronic copy only;
         PSRBs where requested (if involved) – (numbers to be determined individually and
          accompanied by a letter from the official correspondent).

The Academic Quality Support Officer retains an electronic copy (for the official Faculty
repository).

Once approved, the finalised version of the Definitive Student Handbook Document may
only be altered by using the quality assurance and monitoring procedures for changes (see
section 15).

Programmes of Study must not be altered for registered students without their approval and
until all procedures for a change to a Programme and Definitive Student Handbook are
complete and approved.

The Student Handbook is available to students on the Faculty web site when they enrol and
may contain information that needs updating. Each updated version must have the version
number on the front cover in the appropriate box. It should be reviewed annually. This
document may be required by the internal academic auditors. The University’s template and
guidance for the preparation of Student Handbooks must always be used when preparing
Student Handbooks.

14.0      Maintenance of Records for approval, review and re-approval process

Records and electronic copies are kept of all internal and external correspondence of all
current ongoing approval and review / re-approval events together with any action taken or
decisions made together with minutes of any committee or Senate meetings which have
considered or approved any aspect of programme until the event is completed

All records are kept for a minimum of five years,

All confirmed reports are kept indefinitely.

14.1      After the completion of the process

A copy of all confirmed reports and the synopsis (if one has been prepared), together with a
record of any outstanding matters which will affect the implementation of the programme are
set up in an electronic file in the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance.



                                                                                         20
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
A new file is set up for each programme which will contain a copy of the finalised definitive
programme documents, together with the approval, review and re-approval reports. This file
acts as the focus for all official correspondence and is the reference point for such
information.

As the programme of study proceeds additional files are set up which contain annual
programme monitoring reports, external examiners' reports and any records of any changes
or additional modules.

15.0      Changes to Programmes during the Review Period

Although each Programme of Study has a defined period after which a major review must
take place, it may be necessary to make changes to a Programme during the interim period
in order to meet any short-term or development needs. These changes may involve the
adding of new modules, the altering of placement schemes or a proposed change in the
mode of delivery.

Formally, Executive Deans are responsible for classifying proposed changes to programmes
as major, minor or routine curriculum updating, but in practice this task may be undertaken
by the Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) acting on behalf
of the Executive Dean. Where there is uncertainty about whether a change is minor or major
the matter should be referred to the Academic Registry. If necessary the Academic Registry
will consult the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic).

16.1      Routine updating of the curriculum

All staff are expected to update the curriculum they teach regularly. The purpose of this
updating is to ensure the curriculum remains up to date and relevant and reflects the latest
scholarship and / or professional practice in the subject area. Where a change is classified
as routine updating of the curriculum, the change can be made without reference to these
procedures. However, if a member of staff is in doubt about whether a change should be
regarded as routine updating of the curriculum she or he should consult the Associate Dean
(Academic Development and Quality Enhancement).

16.2      Procedure for changes to Programmes

All changes to a programme require:

         Managerial agreement via the School / Department concerned;
         Consultation with and written agreement of the external examiner(s);
         Consultation with and agreement of current students, if affected;
         Formal approval by Board of Studies;
         Agreement of FASQEC which has been delegated to FASQEC Sub-committee in the
          Faculty of Health;
         Formal approval by Faculty Board;
         Full documentation for the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance archives;

If a number of changes are made to a programme during its approval period the cumulative
effect of the incremental changes must be considered.

16.3 Major modifications

Changes which alter the overall provisions of a Programme are normally made at a major
review point. However, major changes may be required to a Programme which is rapidly


                                                                                          21
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
evolving and developing, such as the addition of a new pathway or change of title. Major
changes may not be introduced part way through an academic year.

A change should be defined as “major” when it involves modifications to one or more of the
following aspects of a programme of study:

         the title of the programme;
          the award(s) to which the programme leads;
          the planned duration of study;
          the introduction of an additional mode of study;
          the overall aims and objectives of the programme;
         a significant change to the curriculum and/or structure of the programme;
         a significant change to the assessment methods and requirements for the programme;
         the introduction of a new essential / core module;
         a significant change to the regulations governing the progression of students or the
          classification of awards where the programme is not governed by standard
          assessment regulations;

The term “significant” is defined as a change which affects a whole year/level of the
programme (or in the case of part-time students a stage) or affects the overall programme
rather than a single module. In relation to the structure, content, assessment, progression, or
teaching and learning methods a change of 20% or more to the programme for the year (or in
the case of part-time students a stage) shall be classed as significant.

17.3.1 Procedures for Major Changes

A major change to a programme requires an approval process similar to that for new
programmes of study with the inclusion of panel members previously involved in the
consideration of the Programme if possible. Initially an ISG form ‘Planning approvals for the
development of new taught programmes and major amendments’ must be completed.

If the proposed changes need consideration by the panel but do not necessarily require a
panel to meet, a revised document can be sent to them for consideration and their views
collated by Centre for Academic Quality and Governance and considered by the Panel
Chair. An example of this might be when an additional mode of delivery is sought to be
approved but with no change to the content or regulations relating to it.

Normally, major changes will apply only to students admitted to the programme after the
changes have been formally approved. The explicit students approval and the approval of
Senate is required if the major changes are to be applied to students who were already
enrolled on the programme. In such cases the faculty must consult the external examiners
and all continuing students who will or may be affected by the changes to the programme.
The Faculty is required to tell Senate the outcome of such consultations to inform its
decision.

Major changes must be introduced at the start of the academic year / stage following
approval and should not be introduced partway through an academic year or stage.

17.4                Minor modifications

A change shall be defined as minor where the proposed modification is one which will not
affect the overall aims, objectives, structure and philosophy of the programme but which may
involve modifications to one or more of the following:



                                                                                             22
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
          a small change to the content;
          a small change to the assessment methods and/or assessment regulations;
          a small change to the regulations for progression through the programme (where the
           requirements are not governed by standard assessment regulations);
          a small change to the teaching and learning methods;
          a change to the method of calculating the classification of the award(s);
          in the case of a differentiated award the approval of the introduction of criteria for an
           additional classification;
          the introduction of a new optional module;
          a small change to the assessment regulations where the programme is not governed
           by standard assessment regulations;
          a change to the definition of pre-requisites and co-requisite modules within a
           programme;
          a change to the admissions criteria and admissions process;
          a change to the placement documentation;
          change of module title;
          replacement of a core module with a new one;
          response to PSRB demand;
          a change in the delivery mode;

17.4.1 Procedures for Minor Changes

The procedures established by the Faculty Board must incorporate the principles outlined
below:
         minor changes require the approval of the relevant board of studies, to avoid undue
          delay this approval may be obtained through electronic communication;
         minor changes to programmes require the formal, written approval of the approved
          external examiners;
         minor changes to modules forming part of a programme or programmes within a staged
          examination board structure require the written approval of the approved specialist
          external examiner(s). The General External Examiner must be informed of the changes
          after they have been approved;
         minor changes cannot be made to a module after the module has started;
         the impact of a proposed change to one module on other modules forming part of the
          programme must be considered;
         if the minor changes involve a change to the assessment methods or assessment
          requirements for a module which the faculty wishes to apply students who have already
          studied the module and failed, these students should be consulted formally about the
          application of the change to their resits. Their views should be recorded and reported to
          the Dean or Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) to
          inform the decision about the application of the change to these students;
Proposals for minor changes are made on a standard University form which is available on
the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance website. All programme approval
procedures must be completed before the change is implemented. External Examiner’s
formal approval and Board of Studies’ formal approval must be sought prior to and
accompany submission of the proposed change to the Academic Board.

Files relating to each change, including all correspondence and minutes of meetings, are
kept by the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance. This will include the approval of



                                                                                                 23
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
External Examiner(s) and Boards of Studies. The Faculty will forward copies of all minor
changes to the University’s Academic Registry.

17.4.2              Procedures after minor changes

Once a minor change has been approved, the Associate Dean (Academic Development and
Quality Enhancement) is required to ensure that:

    the change is published to students in the Student Handbook;

    all approved minor changes must be reported to the Faculty Board once they have been
     approved on behalf of the faculty;

    information is provided to allow the University’s records to be updated;

    the programme specification is updated as necessary and then published via the Student
     Handbook and Centre for Academic Quality and Governance website;

    details of all changes approved by the faculty during the previous academic year must be
     submitted to the Academic Registry;

    details of changes should be recorded in the Programme Annual Monitoring Report;

    a record is maintained of all the changes approved to a programme during its review
     period and the faculty’s approval procedures must ensure that this record is taken into
     account when further changes are proposed.

18.00 Exemptions from the Standard Assessment Regulations

The Faculty of Health asked for exemptions from the standard assessment regulations and
any exemption must be formally approved by FASQEC Sub-committee. Where an
exemption to the standard assessment regulations has been granted by Senate or by the
Academic Registrar on behalf of the Senate, the exemption should be applied from the start
of the next academic year unless specific approval has been granted by the Senate or the
Academic Registrar for the exemption to be applied partway through the year.

19.0      Closure of Programmes

Occasionally it is necessary for a programme to close. Guidance on the procedures
governing the closure of programmes is available on the Centre for Academic Quality and
Governance website.

20.0      Programme Annual Monitoring

Programme Annual Monitoring is the process by which a faculty critically appraises a
programme each year to ensure that the standard of the award and the quality of the student
learning experiences are maintained. Thus the process ensures that the quality and
standards of the programme are monitored between reviews. Programme teams are
required to monitor the implementation of panel recommendations as part of this process.

Faculties are permitted to design their own arrangements for the conduct of the monitoring
processes, but those processes must conform to the University requirements.




                                                                                          24
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
20.1        Annual Monitoring Process and Procedure

The Faculty of Health undertakes exception reporting for Programme Annual Monitoring
Reporting and the guidelines can be found in annex 14.

The purpose of Programme Annual Monitoring is to ensure that information about the life of
a programme from a number of sources, such as student evaluation of individual modules,
external examiners' and lecturers' reports are collated by the programme director and
subsequently considered and endorsed by the Board of Studies in the form of an annual
report which is subject to peer review with feedback and an agreed action plan passed on to
all concerned..

This process must include consideration of a report that includes the comments of staff, the
external examiners and the students, analysis of module evaluation, student admissions,
progression, withdrawals, transfers and results. Where relevant, the views of professional /
statutory / regulatory bodies and employers will also be taken into account. Teams will be
required to use the University’s standard template for annual reports. The Faculty should
ensure that, where necessary, action is taken to resolve any issues identified through the
annual monitoring process. The Board of Studies should have the opportunity to comment
upon the annual report as part of the Faculty’s monitoring processes.

The programme team collates and analyses feedback from a number of sources such as
teaching colleagues, students, employers, users and external examiners. This is reported to
the Board of Studies and action taken as appropriate. Students’ and teachers' evaluation of
individual modules will be the responsibility of and conducted by the module leaders/co-
ordinators.

Each FASQEC is required to establish procedures for Programme Annual Monitoring. The
processes used should allow FASQEC to satisfy itself and Senate that programmes are
properly evaluated and considered through the appropriate academic sub-structures.

The overall aim of this process is to ensure optimum programme performance, the
identification of problems and the definition of action plans within agreed and understood
standards and resources within the Faculty.

20.2      Collection of Evidence

Results from the module evaluation will be made available to Programme directors. Where
a particular issue relating to specific module(s) affects the quality of the student experience
on a Programme, information on this should be included in the annual report by the
Programme director. This is an ongoing process throughout the year.

20.3       Documentation

The Centre for Academic Quality and Governance provides the programme director with a
copy of the Programme Annual Monitoring report template which is published by Academic
Registry. Relevant statistical information on student admissions, progressions and outcomes
is supplied by the Planning and Statistics Office following completion of any referral
examination boards (with External Examiners' reports as soon as they are available).

The Programme Director produces a draft report incorporating evaluation issues and
appends external examiners' reports. This report should address important and strategic
issues arising from the annual evaluation exercise, the previous annual report action plan,
approval, review and re-approval / review recommendations and any programme specific
feedback from the Birmingham City University Student Satisfaction Survey. Students’ and

                                                                                            25
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
teachers’ evaluation of individual modules is the responsibility of, and conducted by the
module co-ordinator. Where particular issues relate to specific modules and impact on the
quality of the student experience this should be included in the report.

The Board of Studies receives, discusses and endorses the draft report, making
amendments as necessary. The autumn meeting will be dedicated to this agenda item
alone. Two hard copies signed by the Head of School are sent to the Centre for Academic
Quality and Governance.

Where a panel identifies matters for consideration for the programme team in a panel event
these must be completed during the academic year and evaluated in the Programme Annual
Monitoring Report.

20.4      Peer Review

The Programme Annual Monitoring report is peer reviewed using the guidance and template
which can be found in annex XX. Teams of experienced academic staff from across the
Faculty discuss the annual reports as a peer review exercise. A review form in relation to
each programme is completed. These are used by the Associate Dean (Academic
Development and Quality Enhancement) to compile a composite report on the academic
standards within the Faculty. This is presented to Faculty Board.

Academic staff must be appropriately qualified and adequately supported in their teaching
and assessment duties. The regulations also include an expectation that where a faculty’s
annual monitoring processes reveal problems in relation to a particular module the module
will be subject to detailed investigation, which should include consideration of whether the
quality of teaching has contributed to the problems.

20.5      Feedback

Electronic feedback from the peer review is given to all Programme Directors by the Director
of Academic Quality with a copy to the Head of Department / School. Where necessary,
issues may be followed up in meetings between the Associate Dean (Academic
Development and Quality Enhancement), Director of Academic Quality, the Programme
Director and the Head of Department / School.

In addition to the monitoring within the Faculty some Programme Annual Monitoring reports
are also made available to PSRBs and funding bodies. The review process together with any
recommended changes are reported to the Faculty Board. Agreed changes are then
circulated to all concerned.

22.0       Quality Assurance Roles

Ultimate responsibility to Senate for Quality Assurance within the Faculty rests with the
Executive Dean. Other individuals or groups of individuals contribute as follows.

22.1      The Quality Assurance Role of Faculty Board

The Executive Dean and Faculty Board are responsible to Senate for the probity and
conduct of approval, review and re-approval and review events administered by the Faculty.

The role of Faculty Board within the Faculty Quality Assurance process is to:

         approve all policies and procedures;
         approve any changes to the procedures before implementation;

                                                                                         26
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
         advise on any additional procedures required at any time;
         approve any minor change to existing programmes of study, including the approval of
          new modules, confirming that the proper process of consultation have been followed;
         receive and approve reports of any approval, review and re-approval or accreditation
          event prior to reporting it to the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Academic) together with an
          account of any action to be taken in addition to that decided by the Approval, Review
          and Re-Approval Panel and any other conclusions and progress made on the
          meeting of any conditions;
         decide upon any special monitoring required of any programme of study and to relay
          details of this to the Programme Director and Director Academic Quality;
         oversee the effectiveness of programmes, to identify common issues and evidence of
          good practice by means of the annual monitoring process.

22.2      Ongoing Quality Monitoring and Enhancement in the Faculty of Health

There are several processes undertaken by the Faculty of Health in addition to University
policies and procedures for ongoing quality monitoring and enhancement which contribute to
programmes and modules of study quality monitoring and enhancement which include;

         Student module evaluations and staff annual module evaluation monitoring proforma
          which contribute to the Programme Annual Monitoring report;
         Internal moderation of academic work and practice documentation;
         An anonymous questionnaire offered to students on the feedback they have received
          for their assessments;
         Meeting University Benchmarks guidelines and proforma;
         Programme /subject Quality days;
         Quality Newsletter identifying good practice
         Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) Student
          Forums;
         Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) Quality
          monitoring and enhancement meetings with Heads of School and Heads of
          Department;
         Faculty of Health policy and guidelines working group;
         External Examiner Reports (module and programme);
         Curriculum development groups which include practice partners;
         Marketing, Retention and Admissions (MAR) Group;
         OQME Process which include; Healthcare Quality Strategic Group, Profession
          Specific Groups and Annual Review Meeting;

The Faculty of Health are also externally quality monitored annually by the following
organisations;

         Mott MacDonald on behalf of the NMC by providing an annual report to demonstrate
          how risks are being controlled, receiving a visit from a team of reviewers or gaining
          autonomy to undertake internal quality monitoring of risk controls;

         Health Professions Council by providing either the programme annual monitoring
          report or completing a self declaration stating that programmes continue to meet
          HPC standards;

         General Social Care Council by providing the programme annual monitoring report
          and appendices, plus completion of the GSCC quality monitoring annual report;



                                                                                            27
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
         An annual report provided to the following professional bodies for specific
          programmes;

               o    CASE;
               o    College of Speech and Language Therapy;
               o    College of Radiographers;

         The Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) compiles a
          composite report for the West Midlands Strategic Health Authority in respect of
          Nursing and Midwifery, Specialist Community Public Health Nursing, Operating
          Department Practice, Paramedics, Diagnostic Radiography and Radiotherapy and
          Speech and Language Therapy.




                                                                                      28
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                                                                   Annex 1

                                                    Faculty of Health

Code of Practice for Contacting and Communicating with Regulatory and Professional
               Bodies in relation to Programmes and Modules of Study

1.0         Introduction

The Faculty of Health provides programmes of study that are approved, reviewed / re-
approved and monitored by Regulatory Bodies, namely the General Social Care Council
(GSCC), Health Professions Council (HPC) and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC).1

General Social Care Council http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/

Health Professions Council http://www.hpc-uk.org/

Nursing and Midwifery Council http://www.nmc-uk.org/ Mott MacDonald quality monitors
programmes on behalf of the NMC http://www.nmc.mottmac.com/

Some programmes in the Faculty of Health are also approved, reviewed / re-approved and
monitored by Professional Bodies, namely College of Operating Department Practitioners,
Consortium for Accreditation of Sonographic Education, Society of Radiographers and Royal
College of Speech and Language Therapy.

College of Operating Department Practitioners http://www.aodp.org/

Consortium for Accreditation of Sonographic Education
http://www.bmus.org/case/accreditation.asp

Society of Radiographers http://www.sor.org/

Royal College of Speech and Language Therapy http://www.rcslt.org/

Though there are occasionally other circumstances that require liaison with Regulatory and /
or Professional Bodies they always require formal and timely communication and
documented evidence from the Faculty of Health in relation to:

           Changes to programmes and modules of study
           Faculty reports
           Programme annual monitoring reports or declarations
           Programme monitoring visits
           Programme approvals or reviews and re-approvals

In relation to the matters above, it is vital that there should be no miscommunication or
compromise of information of any kind. Therefore a Code of Practice has been developed in
consultation with relevant Heads of School and Heads of Department to ensure that risks to
the Faculty of Health are controlled and reduced. The Code will also ensure consistency in
our approach to communication.

Any exceptions from the normal Regulatory and / or Professional Body quality monitoring
processes must be reported to the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance within 24

1
    Section 2 of the Faculty’s Guide to Academic Procedures (GAP) must be read in conjunction with this Code of Practice.


                                                                                                                            29
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
hours of receiving a communication so the Associate Dean (Academic Quality and
Enhancement) can be informed.

2.0       Contact and Communication with Regulatory and Professional Bodies

Any contact or communications with Regulatory and Professional Bodies in relation to
modules and programmes of study must be made through the Centre for Academic Quality
and Governance.

If a Regulatory or Professional Body communicates directly with a programme director (PD)
in relation to academic or practice provision in the Faculty of Health, the Centre for
Academic Quality and Governance must be informed by email. If a response is required to
such a communication it must be sent via the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance.
Once agreed the communication will be sent to the Regulatory and / or Professional Body,
and copied to the PD.

The PD has the responsibility to inform their Head of School and Head of Department of any
communications they have received from the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance
in relation to Regulatory and Professional Bodies.

If a Head of School, Head of Department or PD wishes to initiate contact with a Regulatory
or Professional Body the Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality
Enhancement) or nominee must be informed. The Centre for Academic Quality and
Governance must be copied into or informed of any communication that has relevance to
quality monitoring and enhancement of programmes to provide an audit trail.

2.1       Contacts with Regulatory Bodies for Signing Declarations upon Students
          completing an approved Programme of Study

The School of Professional Practice will keep a register of those staff who are named Official
Signatory for signing declarations for particular programmes to enable students to apply to
enter their details on a Professional Register. Where there are queries in relation to
uploading and sending student’s data to a Regulatory Body the relevant administrator in the
Department of Practice Learning must be communicated with in the first instance (see 2.2).

If there are issues in relation to not signing declarations the Head of School Professional
Practice must be informed who will communicate the Associate Dean (Academic
Development and Quality Enhancement).

2.2       Contacts with a Regulatory Body for Uploading Student Data for Registration
          Purposes

After the ratification of students results at a Programme Examination Board or Multi
Professional Board the Programme Director must send Official Examination Board results
spreadsheets within 1 working day to the following staff in the Department of Practice
Learning.

Note: typed lists of student’s names and results will not be accepted.

It is the responsibility of the identified administrator in the Department of Practice Leaning to
upload the relevant data of a student who has completed their programme of study to enable
them to apply for professional registration, or have annotation against their registration. After
uploading the student data the response from the Regulatory Body will be kept on file in both
electronic and hard copy.


                                                                                              30
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Nursing
Specialist Community Public Health Nursing                               Sandra Thomas
Non Medical Prescribing

Midwifery                                                                Helen Mabey

Diagnostic Radiography                                                   Ian Pugh
ODP
Radiotherapy
Speech and Language Therapy
Paramedic
Supplementary Prescribing

Social Work                                                              Lizzy Preddy

2.3        Contacts with the General Social Care Council

The Official Correspondent for the General Social Care Council is the University Registrar.
The University Registrar must always be communicated with in relation to any contacts with
the GSCC.

3.0        Changes to Programmes or Modules of Study

Changes to Programmes and modules of study are always submitted, reviewed and
approved by the Faculty Academic Standards and Quality Enhancement Subcommittee
which is a sub group of the Faculty Academic Standards and Quality Enhancement
Committee. This sub group has a remit to undertake internal quality monitoring of changes to
programmes and modules of study.

When submitting any changes to a programme or module of study normally the following
documentation2 must be sent to the Clerk of Faculty Academic Standards and Quality
Enhancement Subcommittee:

          Programme / module change form with a clear rationale for the change
          Written evidence of review and approval from External Examiner(s), students, users
           and practice partners through minutes from the Boards of Studies, or other electronic
           means such as E-mails.
          A completed module template
          Competency document where relevant
          Changed section in student handbook
          Any other documentation requested by the Clerk on behalf of FASQEC
           Subcommittee
    
The member of staff responsible for the change must attend FASQEC Subcommittee, and it
is expected that a student is invited to attend FASQEC to gain their perspective.

An appointment time will be sent to attend the meeting; however the member of staff and
student are welcome to attend the whole meeting if they wish.
Members of FASQEC Subcommittee will review the proposed changes, which will be either;

     Approved / not approved
     Further information or minor changes required

2
    Members of staff will be informed by the Clerk of the relevant documentation required.


                                                                                             31
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Changes must not be implemented until they have been formally approved. This may take
place at the FASQEC Subcommittee or via agreed Chair’s Action. Where Chairs action has
been agreed the further information or minor change must be submitted within 10 working
days. If not the Head of School / Head of Department will be informed. The Clerk will
communicate with the relevant member of staff stating the changes have been approved
within 15 working days of submission.

Where a programme or module of study has been approved by a Regulatory / Professional
Body the above processes still apply but there are also additional requirements.

3.1       Changes to Programmes and Modules of Study Health Professions
          Council

The Health Professions Council (HPC) set Standards for Education (SETs) and Standards of
Proficiency (SOPs) and when a change occurs to a programme the HPC expect
consideration to be given to the impact on how the SETs and SOPs continue to be met.
They do not require the Faculty of Health to notify them of every change to a programme,
and if a change does not have an impact on how a programme meets HPC standards it can
be reported through annual monitoring. If the change impacts on the standards it must be
recorded on a HPC Change Form. The PD must complete the form and send it to the Centre
for Academic Quality and Governance who will review the information and send it to the
HPC. The PD will be copied into the communication.

3.2       Changes to Programmes and Modules of Study General Social Care
          Council

The General Social Care Council set standards for education and the Faculty of Health must
notify the GSCC promptly of any proposed change to the programme. The Programme
Director must inform the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance who will
communicate with the University Registrar in relation to the proposed changes.

3.3       Changes to Programmes and Modules of Study Nursing and Midwifery Council

The Nursing and Midwifery Council set Standards for each programme that they regulate.
Where a change to a programme / module is required the Centre for Academic Quality and
Governance will communicate with Mott MacDonald. If Mott MacDonald agrees that the
changed can be undertaken through the Faculty of Health internal quality monitoring system
the following information is normally required:

          Rational for the change
          How the changed programme continues to meet the required NMC standards
          Copies of both the old module and new module template if a change relates to a
           module of study. Highlighting the change that has taken place.
          Mapping against the specific Standards
          Relevant sections from the Student Handbook, practice documentation, and
           programme specifications if a change relates to the overall programme

The Clerk of FASQEC Subcommittee will send the evidence and relevant meeting minutes
to the administrator at Mott MacDonald and the Centre for Academic Quality and
Governance will communicate the outcome received to the PD who will inform the Head of
School and Head of Department.




                                                                                       32
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
3.4       Recording and Reporting Changes in Programmes and Modules of Study

It is the PDs responsibility to ensure that all changes made to a programme or module of
study are reported to External Examiners, Boards of Studies, Quality days and practice
partner meetings. All changes must also be recorded in the Programme Annual Monitoring
Report.

4.0       Programme Annual Monitoring Regulatory Body Requirements

Each Regulatory Body has their own processes for programme annual monitoring, but all
Regulatory Bodies require copies of Programme Annual Monitoring Reports for the
programme(s) they have approved.

All Programmes Annual Monitoring Reports must undertake exception reporting and be
monitored by the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance. The Head of School / Head
of Department must sign a hard copy of the report which must be sent to the Centre for
Academic Quality and Governance. Each PD must attend a peer review for their Programme
Annual Monitoring Report before it is formally submitted to a Regulatory Body by the Centre
for Academic Quality and Governance.

4.1       Programme Annual Monitoring General Social Care Council

Each year the GSCC annual monitor approved Social Work programmes requiring a copy of
the Programme Annual Monitoring Report with External Examiners annual reports and
letters of response by 30 November each academic year.

Programme Directors will send the completed documentation to the Centre for Academic
Quality and Governance which will be sent to the GSCC via the University Registrar’s Office.

After receiving the Programme Report the GSCC will then formally communicate with the
University stating the programme continues to meet their standards. However, if the
programme does not continue to meet their standards the Inspector will investigate to decide
whether an accredited university should:

         be asked to provide more information
         told that a visit will be necessary; or
         told that a recommendation is being made to the Head of Social Work Education and
          Training that an inspection should be carried out.

Where the PD is asked to provide more information this may be in the form of a report to
clarify areas.

The report must be written by the Head of Department Social Work and Head of Department
Practice Learning in liaison with the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance. The
completed report must be sent to the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance for
review and the definitive report will be sent to the University Registrar for final review and
approval. Once the University Registrar is satisfied with the report it will be sent to the
GSCC.

4.1.1     Annual Monitoring General Social Care Council

The Head of Department for Social Work is also required to complete an Annual Monitoring
Report which is received from the GSCC for submission by a defined date.

                                                                                           33
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
The Annual Monitoring Report contains requests for information about the academic and
practice learning elements of a programme. Each year the GSCC will also focus on different
specific areas with requests for information e.g. Practice or Qapl. The Head of Department
Social Work must liaise with the Head of Department Practice Learning for completion of this
report.

The final report must be submitted to the Head of School, Health and Social Care and Head
of School Practice Learning for School level approval, before sending it to the Centre for
Academic Quality and Governance. The Centre for Academic Quality and Governance will
review the report and send it to the University Registrar for final approval, to be forwarded to
the GSCC.

4.2       Annual Monitoring Health Professions Council

Following an 'open-ended approval' of a programme by the HPC they undertake annual
monitoring to consider whether a programme continues to meet the SETs and SOPs.

Annual monitoring involves two types of monitoring submissions: an audit or a declaration
and the HPC identify on their website which education providers will undertake the type of
monitoring submission. This is also confirmed by a letter to the named person, usually the
Programme Director.

4.2.1     Annual monitoring audit

If an annual monitoring audit is required it must be completed by the PD and sent to the
Centre for Academic Quality and Governance, it will be reviewed and forwarded to the HPC.

If an audit is not submitted, or incomplete, or no additional documents are sent, then this is
referred to the Education and Training Committee (ETC) for a decision to consider the future
approval of the programme.

The completed audit form and reports will normally be reviewed by two HPC visitors. Once
the visitor(s) have assessed the documentation, they will make the appropriate
recommendation to the ETC. The Committee, based upon the recommendation of the
visitors, will decide either:

         there is sufficient evidence to     show the programme continues to meet HPC
          standards; or,
         there is insufficient evidence to   show how the programme continues to meet our
          standards. Therefore a visit will   be required to gather evidence to show how the
          programme meets the SETs and        SOPs and, if required, place conditions on ongoing
          approval.

In some cases, visitors may request additional information in order for them to make their
recommendation. If additional information is required the HPC will contact the PD to request
this, and the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance must be informed. The PD will
then have 14 days to submit the requested information to the HPC which must be sent via
the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance.

If the ETC decides a programme requires HPC to visit, a member of the Education
Department will liaise with the Faculty of Health and the process for a review and re-
approval event will be followed.



                                                                                             34
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
The HPC will inform the Faculty of Health of the ETC decision, in writing, within 28 days of
the Committee meeting.

4.2.2     Annual monitoring declaration

If an annual monitoring declaration is required this must be completed by the PD and sent to
the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance, it will be reviewed and forwarded to the
HPC.

Failure to submit an annual monitoring declaration form to the HPC by the due date will be
reported to their Education and Training Committee which will consider the future of HPC
approval to the programme.

4.3       Programme Annual Monitoring Reports Nursing and Midwifery Council

The Centre for Academic Quality and Governance must produce an annual report based on
NMC risks by December of each academic year which must include Programme Annual
Monitoring Reports of approved Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) programmes.

The NMC requires an annual report which demonstrates how each of the programmes
offered meet NMC standards and requirements. The report must include:

         Intended numbers and actual numbers of students recruited.
         Achievement and progression of students.
         Analysis of external examiners' reports and resultant action.
         Monitoring of intra and inter-reliability and consistency of practice assessments made
          by mentors/academic staff.
         Evidence of acting on findings of composite reports of audits of clinical governance
          practice.
         Report on register of assessors.
         Report on mentor preparation/updating.
         Student and clinical evaluations.
         Risk assessment of clinical issues.
         Modifications of the programme since approval and additional resources allocated to
          support developments in accord with the Statement of Compliance or equivalent.
         Action plans and subsequent achievements resulting from programme development.
         Actions taken as a result of institutional audit.

The Centre for Academic Quality and Governance will send the Programme Annual
Monitoring reports to Mott MacDonald.

5.0       Programme Annual Monitoring Professional Bodies

Some Professional Bodies require information in relation to academic or placement learning
for students. Where a PD is asked to complete a Professional Body monitoring form this
must be undertaken by the PD and sent to the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance
who will forward it to the relevant Professional Body.

6.0       Visits by Professional Regulatory and Statutory Bodies to the Faculty of Health

The University has a Policy for informing Registry of Professional Regulatory and Statutory
Bodies visits to Faculties. Where members of staff are contacted by one of these Bodies
stating they will be undertaking a visit to the Faculty, the Centre for Academic Quality and


                                                                                             35
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Governance must be informed. It is the responsibility of the Centre for Academic Quality and
Governance to inform Academic Registry of the dates that any Professional Regulatory and
Statutory Body will be visiting the Faculty of Health, and Academic Registry will inform
Senate.

6.1       Monitoring Visits

Where a Regulatory Body makes contact with the Faculty of Health to undertake a
monitoring visit the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance must be informed and they
will inform the Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) of the
proposed visit.

All relevant members of staff will be informed of the proposed dates and a preparation
meeting will be arranged by the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance as to how the
monitoring visit will be managed with an agreed timescale for the full process.

6.2       Inspection General Social Care Council

The GSCC has the power to undertake an inspection when there is evidence that a
University is not:

     Meeting the accreditation conditions or serious concerns have been raised; and
     Not putting things right within the timescale the GSCC have set.

If an inspection visit is requested the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance will
inform the University Registrar, Associate Dean and Head of School.

6.3       Monitoring Visit Health Professions Council

The HPC have the power to undertake a monitoring visit to the Faculty of Health. If a
monitoring visit is required the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance must be
informed, and they will inform the Associate Dean.

6.4       Monitoring Visit Nursing and Midwifery Council

A team of Mott MacDonald reviewers undertake annual risk based monitoring on behalf of
the NMC. The majority of the event will take place in practice placement areas where the
findings drawn from the annual report and other relevant documents will be tested with
students, mentors / practice teachers and employers.

7.0       Programme Approval or Review and Re-approval

Where a programme is due for approval or review and re-approval by a Regulatory and / or
Professional Body the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance will undertake liaison
and organisation for the panel event in discussion with the Associate Dean (Academic
Development and Quality Enhancement). It is a University Policy that an Associate Dean or
nominee must be in attendance at approval, review and re-approval panels.

The proposed dates for all panel events will organised by the Centre for Academic Quality
and Governance in liaison with the Associate Dean, Head of School / Department and
programme team. It is the responsibility of the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance
to communicate the dates to Professional and Regulatory Bodies.




                                                                                         36
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Note: Where a date for an approval or review and re-approval has been agreed with a
Regulatory Body and it is cancelled by the Faculty of Health we will be charged for the
visitors’ fees and costs to the Regulatory Body.

Where a Regulatory or Professional Body send templates to the Programme Director which
have to be completed for a panel event e.g. mapping against standards the Centre for
Academic Quality and Governance must be informed of their receipt.

Professional and Regulatory Bodies set specific time lines for submission and receipt of all
completed documentation for a panel event. The Centre for Academic Quality and
Governance will inform the PD, Head of School / Head of Department of the required
documentation and timelines. Timelines will also be set for proof reading and quality
monitoring of the documentation and for submission to the Professional / Regulatory Body
and this must be adhered too. The Centre for Academic Quality and Governance will send
all confirmed completed documentation to the Professional / Regulatory Body.
Regulatory and Professional Bodies generally allocate visitors / reviewers for such events,
and once the names are received the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance will
distribute them to the Programme Team to ensure there is no conflict of interest. If there are
conflicts of interest the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance must be informed
within 2 working days and they will inform the Regulatory and / or Professional Body.

8.0       Conditions of Approval from a Panel Event

Where a Regulatory or Professional Body requires evidence to meet conditions of approval a
date for their submission will be agreed with the team at the Panel event. The PD and
programme team must submit the evidence to the Centre for Academic Quality and
Governance 10 working days before the agreed submission date so that it can be reviewed
and quality monitored.

9.0       Recommendations from Panel Events

All recommendations from Panel Events must be considered and implemented during the
first academic year after approval of the programme and reported within the Programme
Annual Monitoring Report.

10.0      Review and Re-approval of a Programme of Study when it is still within the
          University approval period

There may be rare circumstances where a Regulatory Body requests a review and re-
approval of a programme when it is still within the University approval period. Such a
circumstance is high risk to the Faculty of Health, and the Centre for Academic Quality and
Governance must be informed, identifying the context and issues, and providing the
evidence that has led to the circumstance.

The Executive Dean, Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement),
or nominated representative, and University Registrar will be informed of the circumstances,
and provided with the evidence that has led to the situation.

In these circumstances the University and Faculty of Health will not normally re-approve a
programme but will host a Review and Re-approval panel for the Regulatory and
Professional Body.




                                                                                           37
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
9.0       Conclusion

This Code of Practice sets out the standards processes and procedures that academic and
administration staff must follow when communicating with Regulatory and Professional
Bodies. This will ensure the Faculty of Health are controlling and reducing any risks to
compromise the consistency in our approach to communication.

Centre for Academic Quality and Governance and School of Practice Learning
BN/WR/CD
             th
November 13 2009




                                                                                     38
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                               Annex 2
 Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies involved with awards and non award
                         bearing programmes provided by the
                                   Faculty of Health
Professional Body
Society and College of Radiographers        BSc (Hons) Diagnostic Radiography
                                            BSc (Hons) Diagnostic Radiotherapy
                                            PG Cert Radiography (Appendicular
                                            Reporting)
                                            PG Cert Radiography (Axial Reporting)
                                            PG Cert Radiography (Barium Enema)
                                            PG Cert Radiography (CT Head Reporting)
                                            PG Cert Radiography (Computed
                                            Tomography)
                                            PG Cert Radiography (Intravenous
                                            Urography)
                                            PG Dip Radiography
                                            PG Dip Image Reporting
                                            MSc Radiography

Royal College of Speech and Language        BSc (Hons) Speech and Language Therapy
Therapists
College of Operating Department             Dip HE ODP
Practitioners
Consortium for the Accreditation of         Post Grad Dip / MSc Medical Ultrasound
Sonographic Education (CASE)

Society of Health Education and Promotion   MSc Health Development
of Specialists
Statutory Body
Improving Access to Psychological           BSc (Hons) Mental Health Studies (Low
Therapies (IAPT)                            Intensity Psychological Well Being)
                                            Post Graduate Certificate Psychological
                                            Wellbeing Interventions
Regulatory Body                             Summary of Involvement
Nursing and Midwifery Council               Dip HE Nursing (RN)
                                            BSc (Hons) Nursing (RN)
                                            Graduate Diploma Nursing (RN)
                                            BSc (Hons) Midwifery (3 year) and BSc
                                            (Hons) / Graduate Diploma Midwifery (18
                                            month).
                                            BSc (Hons) / Graduate Diploma Child
                                            Nursing (Additional Registration).
                                            BSc (Hons) / Graduate Diploma Specialist
                                            Community Public Health Nursing.
                                            BSc (Hons) / Graduate Diploma Community
                                            Health Nursing (Specialist Practitioner
                                            Qualification)

                                            Non University awards
                                            Preparation of Supervisors of Midwives
                                            Return to Practice Nursing
                                            Supporting Learning and Assessment in
                                            Practice (Mentor preparation)


                                                                                     39
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                    Practice Teacher preparation
                                                    Overseas Nurses programme
                                                    Prescribing within Specialist Community
                                                    Public Health Nursing.
                                                    Programmes and Specialist Practitioner
                                                    Qualifications (V100)
                                                    Prescribing from the Nurse Prescribers
                                                    Formulary for Community Practitioners for
                                                    Nurses without a Specialist Practitioner
                                                    Qualification (V150)
                                                    Independent and Supplementary Nurse
                                                    Prescribing (V300)

General Social Care Council                         BSc (Hons) Social Work.
                                                    PG Cert / PG Dip / MSc Mental Health
                                                    PG Dip Mental Health (Higher Specialist
                                                    Social)
                                                    BSc (Hons) / Grad Dip Child Care Practice
                                                    BSc (Hons) / Grad Dip Child Care Practice
                                                    (Specialist Practice)

Health Professions Council                          Dip HE ODP
                                                    BSc (Hons) Speech and Language Therapy
                                                    BSc (Hons) Diagnostic Radiography,
                                                    BSc (Hons) Diagnostic Radiotherapy
                                                    FdSc Health & Social Care (Paramedics)

                                                    Non University awards
                                                    Supplementary Prescribing
Professional bodies generally accredit programmes
Regulatory Bodies approve programmes
January 2010 BN




                                                                                                40
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                                           Annex 3

                   Proposal for New Programmes in the Faculty of Health

The following pro forma must be completed and submitted to the Associate Dean (Academic
     Development and Quality Enhancement) for new programme proposals before the
 submission of an Internal Scrutiny Group proposal. Please complete all the sections, and
                once completed, send it electronically to Marion Thompson.

School:                                         Department:
 1. Name and contact details of person presenting the proposal:


  2.     Programme Title and Indicative Award: (Including any named branches / pathways)


  3.     Number and Level of Credits:


  4.     Length of Programme:


  5.     Mode of Study:

         Full Time / Part Time

  6.     For what type of provision is this proposal made? (e.g. collaborative, Faculty,
         cross-University, distance learning, joint with another institution)


  7.     Will the proposed programme require professional /                   YES / NO
         regulatory body approval?
                                                                        HPC / NMC / GSCC



  8.     Will this programme replace any existing
         programme or programmes?                                      YES / NO


 If yes, please state which programme(s):




 9. Include a BRIEF rationale for the proposed programme and identify the planned
 benefits for the Faculty: (this should reflect the Faculty Plan)




                                                                                                41
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
 10.     Will the proposal require additional staff?
         Any proposals for additional staff must be                  YES / NO
         agreed with the Executive Dean.

 Please provide an explanation for the additional staff:




 11. Who will be the Programme Director?




  12. Proposed target numbers:




 Identify the evidence from the preliminary market research undertaken for the target
 group and target market:



 13.     Does another University provide this
         programme locally?                                          YES / NO


 If yes, provide details:




 14. Will inter-professional learning take place?
                                                                     YES / NO


  Provide a brief explanation of how inter-professional learning will take place:




 15. Indicate the numbers of new and existing modules and modules that will be shared
     with any other programme in the Faculty:




                                                                                        42
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
 16. Will there be placement learning in the
     proposed programme?                                          YES / NO


       If yes, has the Department of Practice
       Learning been consulted?                                   YES / NO
       Any placement requirement must be agreed
       with the DPL before the proposal is
       developed.

 Provide a BRIEF overview of how placements will be obtained, who will provide the
 placements and support for students:




 17. Is there further information that you wish to
     identify which will support the proposal?                    YES / NO


 If yes, provide a BRIEF statement of that further information:




 Signature


 Date:




                                                                                     43
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                                      Annex 4
Birmingham City University


Planning approvals for the development of new
taught programmes and major amendments



            Faculty:
            School /
          Department:


 I confirm that the proposal below has been approved for submission to the Internal Scrutiny
                                           Group.

  Signature (Executive Dean):


                           Date:


        Please return the completed form to the Secretary to the Internal Scrutiny Group,
                                      Academic Registry.



   Section A: Programme Details


  1.         Indicative Award:


  2.         Programme Title
             (Including named
                   routes)

  3.      Number and Level of
            Credits attached

  4.       Proposed Start date


  5.      Development Leader
             / Key Contact




                                                                                            44
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                   Clearing House (e.g. UCAS)
  6.       Application Process
                                                                  Direct entry
          Please give the JACS
              code for this
              programme:
            Please provide a
          statement on student
           satisfaction survey
              responses for
           programmes in the
           same area or within
          the same JACS code.

  7.         Please give a brief
                description of
               programme and
             indicative content.

  8.                                            Is this:
              a new programme for                   a new programme with
               validation?                              Collaborative Elements?
         

              a collaborative                        expansion / Addition to an
               arrangement for an                      existing programme
               existing programme?                      (e.g. a new award or route)

  9.       If the proposal is for a collaborative programme or contains collaborative
                                             elements:
          state the nature of the
            collaboration (e.g.
            articulation/franchise)
          give the name of the partner
            organisation
              state the role of the partner.
         

  10.     If the proposal is an
              addition to, or
             expansion of, an
          existing programme,
           please give the title
              of the existing
               programme.




                                                                                        45
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
  11.    Will this proposal
         have an impact
         (positive or negative)
         on any existing
         programmes in the
         University? Please
         give details of any
         programmes that
         may be affected.




                                  46
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
      Section B: Demand


  12.        How does this
          development relate to
           the University and
             Faculty Plan?


  13.        What is the target
              market for the
              programme?

            How will the target
           market be reached?
            (Please provide an
           indication of planned
                 marketing
             communications).


  14.     What is the evidence
          of demand from the
             target market?


  15.       Is the same or similar programme offered at any other HEI?   Yes:
                                                                         No:
            If yes, please give
            details of the most
              significant local
               competitor(s).

          Please give details of
           other competitor(s)
              who pose the
          greatest challenge to
           recruitment to this
              programme.




                                                                                47
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
  16.     What is the evidence
          of demand within the
                economy?
            (e.g. labour market
                  analysis;
             responsiveness to
          Sector Skills Council or
           other employer body;
              approach from a
          specific employer; etc)


  17.        What is the life
            expectancy of the
              programme?


 18.        Are links proposed to employers or professional bodies?   Yes:
         (Including placements)
                                                                      No:
            If yes, please give
                  details.




                                                                             48
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
      Section C: Student and Delivery Profile


  19.          Please indicate the intended mode(s) of delivery and programme length:

                             Mode                             Length (years & months)

                         Full-time
                        Part-time
             Flexible Learning (Including
             distance/blended/work-based
                       learning)
              Collaborative (Please state
           progression/articulation/franchise)

  20.       Could the programme or modules within the programme be               Yes:
                              delivered flexibly?                                 No:
              If yes, please give
                    details.


  21.                   What is the expected pattern of delivery for each mode?
          (e.g. intensive study blocks supported by remote learning, work-based delivery, etc.)
                   Full-time
                  Part-time
              Flexible Learning
             (Including distance,
           blended or work-based
          learning. Please include
             here any additional
              information to the
               question above)
                Collaborative


   22.                               What is the indicative intake size?

                                                 Home/EU                    Overseas

                                        Full-time     Part-time /    Full-time      Part-time
                                                       Flexible                      (FTE)
                                                        (FTE)

                   Start-up year
                      Year 2
                      Year 3




                                                                                             49
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
tion D: Income


                  23.                      Where are the student numbers to be found?

                           By release from elsewhere in the                         By net expansion?
                                       Faculty?

                  24.
                                      Source                        Level            Expected Price Group

                                      HEFCE                    Standard Rate
                                        TDA                    Standard Rate
                                       NHS
                              Employer Co-funding
                                  (HEFCE/NHS)
                                  Sponsorship
                              Employer Contribution
                                    Fees-only
                               Other (please specify)

                 25.             What is the intended source of funding for international students?

                                        Fees only
                                       Government
                                       World Bank
                                 Asian Development Bank
                                          Other

                  26.       What fees are proposed to be charged for the first year of operation of the
                                                         programme?
                                                              £ Home                      £ Overseas

                                                        Full-time            Part-time

                                Tuition                    £                    £                  £
                              Residential                  £                    £                  £
                                 Books                     £                    £                  £
                               Materials                   £                    £                  £
                         Others (please specify)           £                    £                  £

                 27.        Income projection:                      £ Home                    £ Overseas

                                                        Full-time            Part-time

                                Start-up year              £                    £                  £
                                   Year 2                  £                    £                  £
                                   Year 3                  £                    £                  £



                                                                                                            50
             GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
ction E: Costs


                  28.         Is there additional accommodation required beyond that       Yes:
                                          available to the Faculty already?                No:
                            If yes, what is the amount and type of
                                       space required?

                           When will the additional investment in              Pre-start
                              accommodation be required?                   Start-up year
                                                                                Beyond

                  29.     Will any accommodation require adaptation to meet the needs      Yes:
                                             of the programme?                             No:
                           If yes, what is nature of
                            the adaptation and fit-
                                 out required?


                  30.       Can the programme be taught within existing academic and       Yes:
                                           support staff resources?                        No:
                               If no, please indicate the
                            proportion of FTE required by
                             grade and staff category and
                            number of additional VT hours
                                        required.

                           When will additional investment                    Pre-start:
                                    be required?                          Start-up year:
                                                                               Beyond:

                  31.      If this is a collaborative
                              programme, please
                              indicate the level of
                           involvement of Faculty
                                 link staff in the
                                operation of the
                                   programme.


                  32.             Does the programme require additional equipment?         Yes:
                                                                                           No:
                            If yes, please state type and indicative
                                              cost.

                                 Will the additional investment in            Pre-start:
                                      equipment be required?              Start-up year:


                                                                                                  51
                 GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                      Beyond:

 33.       Are any additional library and learning resources required?            Yes:
                                                                                  No:
           If yes, please indicate
           nature and likely cost.

                                                                                  Yes:
               Has agreement been reached with Library & Learning
              Resources regarding the additional resources required?              No:
                                                                                  N/A:
           When will the additional investment in                    Pre-start:
            library and learning resources be                 Start-up year:
                         required?
                                                                      Beyond:

 34.                    Are any additional ICT resources required?                Yes:
                                                                                  No:
            If yes, please indicate nature and
                        likely cost.

                When will the additional ICT                         Pre-start:
                 investment be required?                      Start-up year:
                                                                      Beyond:

 35.      What is the anticipated         ICT Maintenance and licences                   £
          annual additional cost           Equipment maintenance and                     £
                    of:                              licences
                                              Supplies and materials                     £
                                          Library and learning resources                 £
                                          Other non-pay (please specify)                 £


   Please include a completed Income and Expenditure pro-forma with the Planning
                               Approvals application.




                                                                                             52
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                    Preliminary Paper Annex 5

                                    BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY

                        Preliminary meeting to be held on XXXX from XXXX in XXXX
                                  to consider the review and re-approval of
XXXXX
A GENDA

BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF HEALTH

Notes of the Preliminary meeting held on xxxx to consider the review and re-approval of xxxx

Present:

1)        Introduction and background

2)       Mode of delivery
(Clarification of the intended mode of delivery including reference, if appropriate, to the
inclusion of e-learning or module(s) defined as flexible or distributed learning)

3)        Rationale for the programme, including its place in the Faculty Plan and
          evidence of demand

4)        Resources

Staffing

Equipment

Library

Computing Support

All of the learning and teaching material is available on “Moodle”. Students receive
instructions on how to use this at the induction day and have access to computers in the
University.

5)        Format of the panel event

6)        Documentation to be provided to the panel

7)        Timescales, including dates for submission and circulation of documentation

8)        Panel membership

9)        Timing and format of the meeting with students


10)       Professional Body involvement

11)       Any other business

                                                                                              53
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                   Guidance for completing the preliminary paper, and meeting

These guidelines have been developed to provide you with an understanding of the process
of the preliminary meeting and what areas to consider when writing the preliminary paper for
the Chair.

You must adhere to the headings for the preliminary paper and it is important to explain
clearly the content and process of the programme.

Arrangements for the meeting
This will be undertaken by the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance who will liaise
with you as to the date and time. The Centre for Academic Quality and Governance will book
the room.

Who should attend the meeting to discuss the preliminary paper?
Head of Department
Head of Division
Programme Director

Preliminary Paper for the Approval of:
List the title of the programme and awards starting with the lesser credit award first, if the
programme includes short course explain the rationale for these.

This section will be completed by the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance

Date:
Time:
Room:

Introduction and Background
In this section you need to introduce the programme.
State the reason why you seeking to have the programme and awards approved or re
approved. Has a professional body set standards in relation to the academic level of the
programme?

Explain the driving forces for the development of the programme such as professional body
requirements, changes in Government policy or legislation. Have these driving forces
influenced the addition of other professionals who can undertake the programme?

Who does the programme target? Which professions and why? How will they be targeted?

What are the entry criteria for the students who will access the programme?

Mode of Delivery
Will the programme be provided part time, full time or both? Is there a step on and step off
approach. Explain what you mean by this. Does the programme provide a flexible approach
to delivery, if it does explain? Can students access modules from the programme as stand
alone?

What is the length of the programme? Is there a reason for the length e.g. some professional
bodies specify the time a programme must be provided over?
What is the specific start date for the programme? This must be specified as admissions
need to be informed.



                                                                                                 54
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Will the delivery of the programme be provided over terms, block weeks? How many days a
week will students be in University.

How many modules does the full learning programme comprise of? What is the size of the
modules -single double or triple? What is the rationale for these? Are there different
academic levels for the modules e.g. level 4, 5, 6? What is the credit rating of the modules
of study? Do students need to complete all levels?

If there are prerequisite modules that have to be completed before the student can move on
to the next stage explain the reason why and purpose of the modules.

How many credits will a student gain upon completing the full learning programme and what
aware will it lead to

Is there provision for APL/APEL? Explain how this takes place
Are there interim awards are available? What are they?
Are there named pathway awards because it is a professional / statutory / regulatory body
requirement, or does the title influence the employability of students.

Once the students have successfully completed the full learning programme does a
professional / statutory / regulatory body have to be informed?

Does the programme consist of practice placements? If they do you must explain that the
QAA placement learning precepts have been adhered to.
How many days a week do students attend practice and what are the total days of practice
in the programme? Are there a number of days over a specific period of time which is
specified by a professional body? It is 50% theory and 50% practice. Do students need to
achieve competencies or proficiencies; are these specified by a professional body?
How are placements obtained? How are they audited? Who do students work with in
placements? E.g. mentors. How are they developed to undertake the role? Are they
provided with a handbook?

Identify what mapping has taken place, and how has this been undertaken
QAA subject benchmark statements
QAA level descriptors
Professional body standards
Government Frameworks such as National Service Frameworks
KSF National Occupational Standards

Are there any innovative learning and teaching methods?

How does the programme facilitate inter professional learning. Which modules of study
promote inter professional learning. Does inter professional learning take place in practice

Structure of the programme
Provide an appendix of the structure of the programme; include the titles of the modules and
awards in the programme.

Which Birmingham City University regulations does the programme have to meet?

Rationale for the Programme including place in the Faculty Plan and Evidence of
Demand
Explain how the programme fits with the University Corporate Mission and the Faculty Plan.
Is the programme well established in Birmingham City University? Or is it a new programme.


                                                                                               55
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Has the programme been developed because of requests by employers or SHA bid? Have
students and users been involved in the development of the programme. How have they
been involved?
Do other Universities provide the programme? If so explain why students would access this
programme at Birmingham City University in preference to a competing University. Does the
programme impact on another programme in the University, or is there a similar programme.

How are students recruited? Sponsorship/Seconded by Trusts? Strategic Health Authority
funding? Can national and international students access the programme?

How do students gain a place on the programme? Do they apply to UCAS, their employer?
Are there joint interviewing with practice staff and service users How will students be funded
to access the programme? Strategic Health Authority, NHS Trust, Local Authority or another
organisation. Can self funded students access the programme if they can will additional
resources be required?

Are there students who have already been identified to access the programme?

Is there a strong working relationships with partner organisations explain how this works.
Has the programme been developed with employers, and users of the service?

Will the professional body be invited to attend the approval panel event and what will be
there role in the process?

Resources
The Chair will have received a resource paper. Reiterate that there are dedicated resources
for the programme. If not explain why and what means are in place to resolve the resource
issues.

Identify any current or future marketing costs

Staffing
Explain who the programme team consists of e.g. nurses, midwives, social workers, allied
health professions.
Will the programme employ specialist lecturers for their expertise? Explain what specific
contribution they will make and why e.g. what is their expertise..
Will users contribute to the learning experiences of students?

Which Department provides the programme is there a collaborative approach across
Departments or Divisions, or Faculties?

Equipment
Is there specialist equipment required? If there is specialist equipment used for the
programme state what it is and how well it has been evaluated by students. E.g. skills room,
virtual case creator

Library
Liaison must have take place with the Librarian regarding library resources. Explain that
liaison has taken place and state which libraries will be used. State the library resources
available, books journals, online material, Talis lists.

Computing Support
State if online learning is a significant part of learning on the programme, and what
programme materials will be provided on-line e.g. Moodle. State if this is well established
and what IT support is available for students.

                                                                                              56
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Do students have access to computers in their work place, which will enable them to access
e-learning materials whilst they are working in practice? Can students access online learning
from home? If students do not own a computer are there facilities for loaning a computer.

Format of the Panel Event
The Chair will state if s/he is happy to go ahead with the approval/re-approval event and the
Centre for Academic Quality and Governance will record this in the minutes. The date and
timing of the panel event will be confirmed and recorded in the minutes by the Centre for
Academic Quality and Governance/

At the preliminary meeting you will confirm when the Chair will receive the documentation.
All documentation must be with professional bodies 6 weeks before the panel event. Other
panel members will receive the documentation 3 weeks before the panel event. The Director
of Academic Quality must read all the documents before they are submitted to the Centre for
Academic Quality and Governance as the definitive panel document(s). Therefore
documents must be sent to the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance at least 3
weeks before being sent to the Professional Body and panel members as they have to be
read and sent to print and design.

Documents required for Panel Meeting
List all the documents that will be presented to the panel.
Documents which are normally presented to the panel are:
Student Programme handbook
Module templates and module study guides
Curriculum Vitae of staff teaching on the programme
Practice placement handbook (where applicable)
Mentors handbook
Mapping of modules and programme learning outcomes
Programme specifications

Panel membership
Inform the Chair of the panel membership especially where professional / statutory /
regulatory body members will be in attendance. Explain what their role will be.

Timing and format of the meeting with students
At the preliminary meeting the Chair will confirm the timing of the panel event which will be
recorded in the minutes.

Any other business
This will depend upon the discussion during the preliminary meeting.




                                                                                                57
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                 Resource Paper Annex 6




                                  Programme Title:


               ----------------------------------------------------------------

                        Identification of Resource Needs


                           This form is to be completed by the
                          person responsible for designing the
                         programme. It should be signed off by
                         the Dean of the Faculty and presented
                           to the Chair of the Validation Panel
                             before the Preliminary Meeting




                                                                                    58
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Programme Title:

Programme Duration:

Annual Student Intake:

Anticipated Total Student No:

                                    Programme Proposer’s Comments:

Teaching Contact Hours
Please include estimates of
tutorial and other contact hours
which may be required in addition
to module contact hours.




                                                                     59
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Staffing

         Coverage of subjects:

         Availability of staff:

         VL requirements:

         Support staff:


Staff Development Needs




Placement Requirements




Rooming Requirements




                                   Programme Proposer’s Comments:

Consumables




Learning Resources




                                                                    60
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Programme Marketing Costs




Other Resourcing/Equipment
Needs
(n.b. External Examiners)




Future Development Needs




Dean’s Comment




                             Signed:

                             Date:




                                       61
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                         IDENTIFICATION OF RESOURCE NEEDS

Guidance notes
The purpose of the Identification of Programme Resource Needs template is to help
programme teams to build as complete a picture as possible of the resource requirements of
a new or revised programme. This will enable the Dean to make an informed decision as to
the Faculty’s ability to support the programme and demonstrate to the panel and any
external scrutineers that resource implications have been considered at an appropriate level.

Whilst programme teams should be able to identify the requirements of their proposed
programme, it is understood that they may not have an overall knowledge of the faculty’s
resources capacity. For example, the programme team may know that a suitable room exists
for a particular module but they may not know what other demands are made on that room
by other programmes. At its most basic, therefore, the template should be regarded as a
gathering by the team of information which will help the Dean to make a judgement about
the viability of the proposal. However, it may be the case that members of the programme
team do know about existing demands on a particular resource and so the template also
offers them an opportunity to make further comment for the Dean’s information.

Finally, when completing the template it should be kept in mind that it will rarely be possible
to make absolute judgements at the planning stage of a new or revised programme
proposal. The information required should be considered indicative rather than definitive.

The notes below are designed to help with the collation of information and completion of the
template.

1.        Teaching contact hours
The number of modules offered multiplied by the anticipated contact time per module should
provide a basis for contact hours. In addition any tutorial requirements and other
requirements outside normal module hours should be indicated. Placements, for example,
may require tutor visits. In cases where validation is being sought for a new programme it
would be suitable to indicate the approximate teaching hours for the first year and provide an
estimate of teaching hours once the programme is fully operational.

2.        Staff
Reference should be made here to:

    the range of subject areas to be covered
    the areas of expertise of current staff
    the availability of current staff
    any requirement for additional staffing, costed as number of hours x VT hourly rate
Staffing needs include the designation of a Course Director and sufficient administrative and
technical assistance to ensure the smooth and efficient running of the programme. In some
cases, it may be useful to map the contact hours, defined in subject areas, against the
expertise and availability of current staff so that any gaps can be easily identified.

3.        Staff Development needs
The programme team should consider whether there are there any areas which it is
anticipated could be taught by current staff after some staff development. Is it possible to
indicate a likely cost for this training?


                                                                                               62
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
4.        Placement requirements
Not all programmes have this requirement, but where a proposed programme does
anticipate student placements there should be a realistic indication of both the feasibility of
organising them and any cost implications. Is the programme proposer confident that
suitable placements can be found? The duration of placements and any possible need for
supervision could have a resource implication. Is student travel to placement to be
reimbursed?
5.        Rooming requirements
It will normally be possible to give accurate requirements which take into account size and
specification of room and the number of hours required. If students are expected to form
action learning sets and work independently, space must be made available. Is the
programme proposer confident that suitable space will be available when the programme
has grown to full strength? Are there suitable specialist rooms if needed? This could
include the provision of studio or laboratory space.
6.        Consumables
All students ‘consume’ certain items such as photocopies and printer-ink. In this section you
should mention only consumables which are specific to the proposed programme and, if
possible, give a likely cost.
7.        Learning resources
This section should indicate permanent learning resource requirements such as:

     specific items of equipment
     technical support
     library resources (including Journal provision)
     IT resources including any specialist software and licensing arrangements
8.        Programme marketing costs
Marketing costs will vary from programme to programme and according to whether this is a
new programme or a re-validation. Advice should be sought from the Faculty Marketing
Officer.
9.        Other resourcing/equipment needs
Does the programme require Field Trips or residential visits?
Are administrative requirements (including staff) in place?
This section may also make reference to External Examiners. A large programme might
need a number of examiners. Will the proposed programme have a need for External
Assessors? Is it possible to give any indication of cost for External Examiners/Assessors?
10.       Future development needs
Taught courses can last up to four years which means that they can be introduced before
resources for later years of the programme are in place. The programme team should
explore this ‘staged implementation’




                                                                                                  63
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                                      Annex 8

BRIEFING NOTE FOR STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAMME REVIEW
AND RE-APPROVAL PROCESS

       This paper has been prepared to brief you about the University’s processes for
       reviewing programmes (sometimes called ‘courses’) and to explain the role of students
       in the process.

                        Academic Quality and Standards

       The Quality Assurance Agency (the national body which oversees the quality of
       provision and the standards of awards offered by higher education institutions)
       describes ‘academic quality’ as:

       how well the learning opportunities available to students are managed to help them
       achieve their award. It is about making sure that appropriate and effective teaching,
       support, assessment and learning opportunities are provided for them.

       The term ‘academic standards’ is used by the Agency to describe:

       the level of achievement a student has to reach to gain an academic award (for
       example a degree).

                        Programme Review and Re-Approval

       The purpose of review and re-approval is to give full consideration to the quality and
       standards of the programme, to ensure that the content remains current in the light of
       developments in the subject area or its application in practice, and to ensure that
       improvements are made where necessary. All programmes which lead to an award
       (including programmes offered by or with partner institutions or which lead to awards of
       bodies such as Edexcel) are monitored annually, but in addition all programmes are
       subject to review and re-approval. Usually these reviews take place six years after the
       programme was approved or last reviewed, but reviews may be held sooner, for
       example, if a Faculty feels that the content needs to be significantly changed because
       of external requirements. However, no programme can operate for more than six
       years without being reviewed and re-approved by Senate.

       Therefore, the University uses the programme review and re-approval process to
       ensure that present and future students have a high quality educational experience
       and that the standards of the University’s awards are maintained.

          The programme review process


A panel is established to consider and make recommendations to the
University’s Senate regarding the review and re-approval of the programme.


The panel includes members of staff as well ex-students of the programme
and external academics and/or practitioners who are able to make
independent and impartial judgements about the programme and to
compare it, in terms of standard and content, with similar programmes
offered elsewhere. The Chair is a member of staff from another faculty.



                                                                                               64
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
A preliminary meeting is held between the Chair of the panel and staff from
the Faculty to discuss: the review process, the resources (both human and
physical) which will be available to support the programme in future, and any
changes the course team plans to make to the structure, content, assessment
etc of the programme.




Documentation about the programme is sent to members of the panel. This
documentation includes:
        an evaluation of the programme since it was approved or last
         reviewed, which provides a rationale for any proposed changes,
         discusses summaries of student feedback, includes an evaluation of
         the extent to which the learning outcomes have been achieved by
         students and considers comments from external examiners about the
         programme and the team’s response to these comments;
        a revised programme specification;
        a revised student handbook;
        if relevant, reports from external bodies about the programme.




Members of the panel meets the management of the faculty, programme team
and current students to discuss the programme and issues identified from
their scrutiny of the documentation. If the panel is unable to meet students on
the day of the panel event, a separate meeting between the Chair of the
panel, a university representative and students will be arranged before the
panel meets. The outcomes of this meeting will be fed into the panel event.




A report of the event is produced. The report includes the panel’s
recommendations to the University’s Senate regarding the programme’s
review and re-approval. A programme that has reached the end of its
approval period cannot be offered to new students until it has been re-
approved by Senate.



Your role in Review

The University places a high value on students’ comments and we use student feedback to
improve our programmes and services wherever we can. Therefore, the programme review
process includes a meeting between members of the panel and students to discuss the
programme. Through this meeting you have the opportunity to contribute, either in person or
via your representatives and/or other students from your programme.



                                                                                        65
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
All students taking the programme have the right to attend the meeting with the panel, but in
practice this is not always feasible, so the Chair of the panel will make arrangements with
the Faculty to meet a representative group of students. The Chair will try to ensure that
students from each year of the programme are invited and, if applicable, will make sure that
the views of students studying the programme on different modes are also taken into
account.

If you have agreed to attend the meeting please do not use the discussion to air personal
grievances or to criticise the competence of an individual member of staff. The Chair will
want to hear the views of all of the students present and will encourage everyone to express
their views. It is helpful if criticisms are constructive and, where possible, accompanied by
suggested solutions to the problem. The panel will take all comments into consideration but
they will seek to form a balanced view. The comments of individual students will not be
revealed to the programme team or attributed to an individual in the report of the meeting.
However, if the student group mentions concerns the panel may need to raise these issues
with the team in order to determine their validity and, if necessary, how they can be rectified.

What questions will you be asked?

You will probably be asked some general questions about what you regard as the best and
least good aspects of your educational experience, as well as some more specific questions
about your particular programme. To help you prepare for the meeting, some examples of
specific questions are given below. However, you or your colleagues may raise other issues
related to your educational experience if you wish. The panel or the Chair may also add
other questions arising from their reading of the documentation.

Admissions

         Was the admissions process clear?
         Did you receive sufficient information prior to starting the programme? Was this
          information accurate?
         Why did you select this programme?

Induction

         How effective was the induction process?
         Did you receive sufficient information about your programme/Faculty/University
          during induction?
         If you or any of your fellow students joined the programme after it had started, did
          you or they receive a satisfactory induction?

Programme Specification

         Are you familiar with the programme specification? If so is the student guide to the
          specification useful?
         Have you and/or your colleagues had the opportunity to comment on the revised
          programme specification?
         Where applicable, are the requirements of any external bodies involved in the
          recognition/accreditation of your programme clear to you?

Programme content, structure and delivery

         What is the student experience like as a learner?
         Has the content been what you expected?


                                                                                                 66
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
         Is the content relevant to the programme’s title, aims and objectives?
         Do the teaching methods vary from module to module? Are they appropriate and
          helpful?
         Are any of your modules delivered entirely by e-learning? If so, does this work well?
         If applicable, how well is practical or project work integrated into the programme?
         Are you taught by visiting teachers? If so, do they understand your programme and
          are they aware of what your year/group has already covered?

Assessment

         Do you know what assessments you have to do and when?
         Is the frequency and timing of assessments appropriate?
         Is the quantity of assessment appropriate?
         Do you know what you have to do in order to achieve a good mark?

Resources

         Are the physical resources such as IT equipment, library support, accommodation
          and any specialist equipment up to date and sufficient?
         Do you have sufficient access to these resources?

Student Support and Guidance

         Are teaching staff approachable?
         Do you have sufficient contact with your tutors/personal tutor?
         Do you have sufficient contact with your Course Director?
         Is additional academic support and guidance available for students who are
          experiencing difficulties?
         Do you receive career guidance? How helpful is it?

Quality Assurance

         Has the student body been involved in the development of the programme?
         Do the student representation processes work effectively on your programme? Do
          you get feedback from the board of studies?
         Are students’ views taken into account sufficiently at programme/Faculty and
          institutional level?
         Do you think the quality assurance processes are effective? For example, are you
          aware of any improvements made to your programme following comments from
          students or external examiners?




                                                                                             67
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                           Annex 9
Time Line for Submission of Panel documentation to the Centre for Academic Quality
and Governance

Programme Title
Date of Panel Event
Draft Documents                Submission            Submission to          Date of
                               Format                                       Submission

Proposed Preliminary           Electronic            Director of Academic
Paper                                                Quality and Quality
Proposed Resource                                    Support
Paper                                                Administrator
Draft student programme        Hard copy             Director of Academic
handbook                                             Quality

Draft module templates         Hard copy             Director of Academic
                                                     Quality
Draft Programme                Hard copy             Director of Academic
Specifications                                       Quality

Draft Placement Learning       Hard copy             Director of Academic
document                                             Quality
Draft Mentor / Practice        Hard copy             Director of Academic
Teacher / Assessor /                                 Quality
Supervisor handbook




Definitive Documents           Submission            Submission to          Date of
                               Format                                       Submission

Curriculum Vitae               Electronic copy.      Quality Support
                                                     Administrator
         Student programme    1 hard copy and       Quality Support
          handbook             1electronic zip       Administrator
         Module templates     file containing all
         Module study         documents.
          guides
         Programme
          Specifications
          Placement Learning
          document
         Mentor / Practice
          Teacher / Assessor
          / Supervisor
          handbook
         Placement audit
         Mapping documents




                                                                                         68
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                                Annex 10

Faculty of Health, Centre for Academic Quality and Governance.

Proforma for the submission of Approval and Re-approval documents.

This form must be completed by the programme team and signed by the Head of School to
confirm that all documents are correct and are a complete final version prior to the
submission of documents to the Centre for Academic Quality and Governance. Documents
will not be processed and sent out to panel members for the approval / re-approval of a
programme of study, until this form is received.

This mechanism does not preclude the preparation and proof reading process which is
typically completed between the Director of Academic Quality and Associate Dean
(Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) and the programme director set out in
the time line.
The Head of School signs the proforma agreeing that all final documents are completed and
meet the University and Faculty standard.


Title of the Programme



Documents                       Student Handbook
This should be a complete
list of all documentation       Module descriptors
to be submitted, using          Module study guides
correct titles
(Please delete any that do      Exemplar of module workbook
not apply)
                                Programme Specifications
Definitive documents
must be brought to the          Practice Book which contains
Centre for Academic             competencies/proficiencies
Quality and Governance
in hard copy so they can        Mentors/practice teacher handbook
be sent to Digital Print
Services.                       Other practice documentation (please specify)

The definitive documents        Critical Review
must also be sent
electronically in a zip file.   CV document

                                Any other documents (please specify)


Head of School /
Department:

Signature:

Date:

Received by:

                                                                                       69
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                                     Annex 11
Review & Re-approvals
Critical Reviews (For Review Approvals)

Critical Reviews are required to support the approval documentation where a programme is
being reviewed and re-approved (It is not normally required in this form for new programme).
The document should be written so that it takes a critical, analytical and reflective account of
the existing programme. The key aspects that should be considered in a Critical Review
are:

       Title Page
       Contents
       Background Information
       Curriculum Design
       Course Content and Organisation
       Recruitment, Admissions and Retention of students incl. ethnicity and equal
       opportunities
       Teaching, Learning and Assessment Strategies
       Effectiveness of Learning
       Student Progression and Analysis
       Student Support and Guidance
       Learning Resources
       Enhancement and Maintenance of Quality & Standards
       Preparation of Graduates for Employment
       Involvement of Service users and providers

The Critical Review should be informed from a variety of documented sources to provide
evidence in support of the changes to be made to the proposed programme. Suggested
documents that might aid the review are;

       Annual Programme reports (last 3 years) - success with achieving action plans and
       issues that have arisen in the course. The latest Annual Monitoring Report MUST be
       included in the Critical Review.
       External Examiner’s Reports (Previous 3 years) – these MUST be provided as an
       appendix to the Critical Review (a University Requirement).
       Professional Body Reports (append to Critical Review where appropriate)
       Department/Division & Programme Action Plans
       Module evaluations - including response to evaluations
       Placement evaluations & Audits
       Boards of Studies Minutes – provided as an appendix to the Critical Review
       Examination Route / Field board minutes – Quality issues relating to the programme.
       Clinical / workplace placement meetings notes & employers evaluations / comments
       Cohort Statistics – progression & achievement, recruitment, age, gender, ethnicity,
       disability (available from Planning and Statistics Office)
       Student Satisfaction Survey – in particular –‘D’ notices and how they were addressed


Professional Body policy statements should be used to inform the development of the
programme.
Learning & Teaching Strategy
Framework for Higher Education Qualifications
Government & NHS policy
QAA Codes of Practice
QAA Subject Benchmarks


                                                                                             70
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Key issues that have arisen during the programme’s history should also be outlined in a
summary page. It must be clearly demonstrated how the key issues raised in the Critical
Review are addressed and how they enhance the proposed course, evidence will help to
support this, i.e. referenced to the documentation used. For example, if there has been
criticism that there is over assessment then this should be referenced to the appropriate
document and comment included as to how this is being addressed in the proposed course.
Alternatively there may be items of good practice that the team wish to illustrate.

A précis (in table format) of the issues raised in the critical review aligned with the proposed
changes to the course should be provided at the end of the review. You should add Board
of Studies Reports or other suitable supportive documentation in the appendix to support the
review where appropriate.

Documents that must be appended to the Critical review are;
     The previous year’s Annual Monitoring Report.
     The last 3 years of External Examiners Reports.
     Programme statistics for recruitment Progression achievement and retention.




                                                                                             71
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                                      Annex 12

                                       Birmingham City University

                                               Faculty of Health

                                           Staff Curriculum Vitae
1.        Name:

2.        Qualifications:

          Academic

          Professional

         Professional Registration Please insert if you are professionally registered with the
         Health Professions Council (HPC), Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) or General
         Social Care Council (GSCC) For monitoring purposes by PSRBs we would ask you
         to record your PIN or registration number. Date due for renewal

3.       Present Post:


4.       Previous Posts:


5.        Learning and Teaching Experiences:


6.        Research Interests and Experience:


7.       Current Research:


8.       Academic Activities:


9.       Professional Activities:


10.       Scholarly Activity:
          Please indicate how this has contributed to students learning experiences

11.       Consultancy:


12.       Publications:


13.       Other Relevant Activities:

Centre for Academic Quality and Governance, March 2009




                                                                                            72
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                                       Annex 13
Birmingham City University

Senate

Template for Reports of Approval and Review / Re-approval Events


Section A           Programme Details and Contextual Information

1.        Purpose

Insert a brief statement on the nature and purpose of the event including the title(s) of
programme(s) and mode of study.

2.        Conduct of the Event

Briefly explain:
 the documentation/evidence base provided to the panel
 the way the panel was conducted
 the format/length of the event
 panel membership and attendance (Appendix)

3.        Background/Context

Insert background and contextual information:
 date of initial approval/last review
 significant developments since initial approval/last review which have impacted on the
    review of the programme
 for collaborative provision, explanation of the nature of the partnership and the role of the
    partner organisation
 a brief summary of points made in the Course Team’s presentation.

Section B           The Panel Meeting

The report should clearly and succinctly summarise the discussion between the panel and
the course team. Where the panel is satisfied with the response to an issue the report
should be relatively brief on that issue. Where the panel is not fully satisfied and therefore
wishes to impose an essential action point or documentary change, the report should have a
more detailed explanation which should clearly show why the panel imposed the essential
change.

The report does not need to include every comment made, to attribute comments to
individuals, or to provide a fully iterative account of discussions; but should concisely
summarise the discussions.

The report should show that the panel discussed any issues of concern raised during the
meeting with students and/or in the evaluative document.

The headings are intended to provide a framework for the panel’s discussions and indicative
discussion issues are given as sub-headings under each heading. However, it is not
expected that the panel will raise issues under all sub-headings.




                                                                                             73
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
1.        Programme Development and the Review of the Existing Programme*

          Summary of the discussion between the panel and the course team on the content of
          the Evaluative Document, including:

          Rationale for changes to the programme;
          How the course team has responded to issues raised by external examiners,
          students or employers;
          Issues arising from recruitment/admission statistics and progression statistics;
          Any identified changes to the resource requirements for the programme;
          Any identified changes to programme management arrangements.

2.        The Views of Current Students*

          Summary of the discussion between the panel and the course team on issues raised
          by current students.

          The Report should in particular summarise the panel’s discussions with the course
          team on any issues of concern/suggestions for change identified in the Report of the
          Meeting with Students.

3.        University Strategy, Policy and Regulations

          Summary of the discussion on issues relating to:

          Rationale for the programme and place in the University/Faculty strategic plans
          The University’s awards framework and assessment regulations
          Admissions requirements
          Market and demand
          University mission and strategy (e.g. widening participation, flexibility, employability)
          Programme management and quality assurance and enhancement
          Staff development

4.        External Reference Points

          Summary of the discussion on issues relating to:

          The Academic Infrastructure
                 QAA Code of Practice
                 FHEQ
                 Subject Benchmarks
          The requirements/expectations of professional and/or statutory bodies
          Engagement with employers

5.        Programme Aims, Structure and Content

          Summary of the discussion on issues relating to:

          Programme philosophy and aims
          Programme Structure
          Curriculum and programme content
          Content of modules
          The Programme Specification


                                                                                                  74
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
6.        The Student Experience

          Summary of the discussion on issues relating to:

          Admissions criteria and arrangements
          Induction
          Resources
          Student support and guidance
          Student representation and consultation
          Careers and employability
          Placements

7.        Learning, Teaching and Assessment

          Summary of the discussion on issues relating to:

          Learning and Teaching Strategies
          Assessment Strategies
          Moodle and PDP

8.        Documentation

          Queries, comments or suggestions relating to the content of documents.

          Where the panel requests a change to documentation, the nature of the change
          should be explained in Section C.

9.        Implementation of Changes*

          The report should clearly indicate whether existing students will be affected by the
          programme changes.

10.       Good Practice and Innovation*

          Any issues identified by the panel as being particularly innovative or indicative of
          good practice.

Section C           Conclusions and Recommendations

1.        Summary of Panel’s Conclusions


2.        Recommendation to Senate


3.        Recommendation of the Panel on the Programme Specification

          Clarify whether the Panel approved the Programme Specification. If the Programme
          Specification was not approved, amendment of the Programme Specification should
          be an Essential Action Point which should be documented in point 4.

4.        Essential Action Points

          List essential action points.

                                                                                                 75
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
5.        Essential Documentary Changes

          List essential documentary changes.

6.        Arrangements for Approval of Essential Action Points/Documentary Changes

          Specify the date/deadline for submitting revised documentation and arrangements for
          submission.

          Clarity approval arrangements/responsibility e.g. approval by panel/Chair’s Action

* Review/reapproval events only

Appendices:

Appendix 1          List of Participants
Appendix 2          For review/reapproval events - Report on Chair’s Meeting with Students
University Senior Administrators: 15 September 2008


                                                                                     Appendix 1

List of participants in the event:

Chair
Panel Secretary
Other Panel Members in Alphabetical Order

Faculty/Course Team Members in Alphabetical Order

                                                                                     Appendix 2

Review of [Name of Programme]


Report of Chair’s Meeting with Students held on [Insert Date)


Summary of Students’ comments on the Programme and the Student Learning Experience


1. The students were generally satisfied with:

List using bullet points those areas where students made positive comments and raised no
issues of concern.

2. The students raised the following issues as areas of concern or in need of change or
improvement:

List using bullet points all areas where students raised issues of concern, made suggestions
for improvement or indicated that the programme would benefit from change.




                                                                                               76
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                                      Annex 14
                                       Faculty of Health

                        Guidelines and Standards for Exception Reporting
                             Programme Annual Monitoring Reports

1.0       Introduction

Ongoing quality monitoring and enhancement provides the opportunity for Programme
Directors to undertake exception reporting in Programme Annual Monitoring Reports.

Exception reporting is a streamlined supportive commentary and highlights:

     The identification and implementation of innovation and good practice.
     Where standards have yet to be met fully.
     Where there is need for improvement.
     Where standard attainment is at risk.
     Where there has been a change since the previous Programme Annual. Monitoring
      Report.

To support Programme Directors and ensure Programme Annual Monitoring Reports
demonstrate consistency in exception reporting these guidelines and standards have been
developed. Adhering to the guidelines and standards will enable Programme Directors and
their teams to exception report with confidence, save time and resources, and enable quality
monitoring and enhancement to be open to scrutiny.

Quality enhancement in maintaining and improving standards is of equal importance as
quality monitoring. Therefore innovations and good practice, which relate to the strengths
and improvements in a programme enhancing students learning experiences in University
and practice, must be reported.

2.0       Exception Reporting Standards

This section provides the minimum standards for exception reporting in all Programme
Annual Monitoring Reports and uses the headings from the University standard template.

Where standard(s) have not been met fully or where there is need for improvement or
standard attainment is at risk a supportive commentary must be provided. Similarly where
innovations and good practice are identified a supportive commentary must also be made.

Programme Directors must be assured that they and the programme team have the
evidence to demonstrate standards have been met, should this be required for any quality
monitoring of a programme.

All sections must be completed using SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant,
Timely) actions with the identification of specific target months for the actions so they can be
measured and evaluated. So, for example the use of the term “ongoing” is not acceptable in
this context.

2.1       Previous Years Action Plan

Where the previous year’s action points have not been met a commentary must be provided.



                                                                                             77
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
2.2       Significant changes

The following standards relate to significant changes;

     Where a programme has been approved / re-approved in the last year the
      considerations made by the panel must be identified, In addition commentary must be
      made on how they have been implemented and evaluated.

     All minor changes must be reported and approved by the FASQEC Business Group no
      other committee in the Faculty of Health can approve minor changes.

The following list provides the minor changes that must be reported and approved in relation
to:

o     Entry criteria or Interview schedule(s).
o     Development of a new module of study.
o     Closure of a module of study.
o     Implementation of Professional Statutory or Regulatory Body (PSRB) circulars or
      standards.
o     Changes to the
             - Module title.
             - Learning outcomes.
             - Module assessment.
             - Mode of delivery.
             - Practice documentation.

Where minor changes to modules or the programme of study have taken place, the
change(s), and date approved must be reported.

2.3       Target numbers

The standards are that programme target numbers for the academic year must be reported,
and commentary must be made in relation to the following where applicable:

     An increase / decrease in target numbers
     The % increase/ decrease
     The body / person responsible for directing the change in target numbers.

2.3.1     Recruitment, Retention and Attrition

The standard is that all programmes must recruit to the identified target numbers.
Commentary must be made in relation to the following, where applicable:

     Under recruitment
     Over recruitment
     The reason (s) why in either case.

The numbers of trailing student from the previous academic year must be stated along with
the reason for non-progression.

Where programmes have not maintained full student retention, and there has been more
than 13% attrition, commentary must be made in relation to:

     The specific time in the programme when attrition took place.


                                                                                         78
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
     Any specific issues that influenced the timing.
     Number of students who have interrupted their study, and the reasons(s).
     Number of students who have been withdrawn, and the reason(s).
     Number of students who have made a decision to leave the programme, and the
      reason(s).
     Number of students who transferred in or out – whether in terms of another cohort or
      another programme.

2.3.2     Student Achievement

The standard is that all students who start the full learning programme will achieve their
qualification aim at the end of the programme. Commentary must be made in relation to the
following, where applicable:

     State the number of students who failed to achieve the qualification aim – including those
      who achieved an interim award.

2.4       Modules

The standards for modules are that all modules must:

     Meet the University benchmarks.
     Reflect the University / Faculty learning and teaching strategy.
     Be evaluated at least once during the academic year.
     Have a completed module evaluation report which has been sent to the Quality Office for
      publication on the Students Portal.
     Have an assessment moderation report. Moderation must take place for all elements of
      assessment, including practice based learning. This includes inter-and intra-reliability for
      practice assessments.

Where these standards are not met a commentary must be made.

2.5       External Examiners

External Examiners have an important role in quality monitoring. The standards are that all
External Examiners (EE) must:

     Meet with students at least once during the academic year.
     Where applicable, engage with practice.
     Be invited to participate in the Programme / Subject Quality Day, at least by providing
      written comments / questions.
     Receive the module template and module study guide.
     Have the opportunity to review a sample of all elements of assessment in a module of
      study and to provide feedback, which must be recorded in the minutes of the Exam
      Board.
     Review the completed module results spreadsheet of all assessment grades in a module
      of study.
     Review the written module evaluation.
     Review and make written comments on any changes in a module of study.
     Review and make written comments on the module assessment(s) each academic year

The Annual Programme Monitoring report must provide a précis of the comments from the
EE in relation to modules provided in a programme of study. However, commentary must be
made in relation to the following where applicable.

                                                                                               79
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
     Innovation and good practice
     Where the is need for improvement, or standard attainment is at risk
     Where there have been specific comments made by the Pro-Vice Chancellor
      (Academic).

The EE Annual Report must be attached to the Programme Annual Monitoring Report along
with the draft response letter from the Programme Director.

2.7       Staff Evaluations

The standard for staff evaluations are the programme teams should have at least one
meeting each academic year to discuss the programme provision and the student learning
experience in addition to the Programme / Subject Quality Day. A précis of these staff
evaluations should be provided in relation to good practice / innovation, or areas where there
is a need for improvement.

2.8       Student Evaluations

Students must be provided with the opportunity to evaluate their learning experiences both in
University and practice, because every programme of study must have an overall
programme evaluation.

Comments and evaluations may come from:

         Boards of Studies
         Student meetings
         Programme / Subject Quality Days
         Associate Dean (Academic Development and Quality Enhancement) Student
          Forums.

Wholesale reporting of staff and student evaluations are not appropriate only relevant
extracts or action points are required. Relevant extracts and action points relate to
innovations and good practice, or where there is a need for improvement or where standards
are at risk.

2.9       Placements

The Department of Practice Learning has systems in place for auditing and evaluating
placements. The standards are where students undertake placements, whether studying an
Undergraduate or Postgraduate programme, and even if students are in their own
workplace, Programme Directors must liaise with the Department of Practice Learning and
ensure:

     There is a placement audit (either electronic or hard copy) with positive outcomes and an
      action plan.
     There is a Faculty of Health Mentor / Practice Teacher Handbook (or equivalent).
     There are opportunities for students to work with a Mentor / Practice Teacher (or
      equivalent) for a specified minimum number of days (which must be identified in the
      Student Programme Handbook, and the Mentor / Practice Teacher handbook.
     There are opportunities for students to undertake placement evaluations
     The Mentor / Practice Teacher (or equivalent) must be provided with the opportunity to
      provide an evaluation which will be on the standard template and available in the Mentor
      / Practice Teacher handbook.


                                                                                            80
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
     The Subject Quality Coordinator invites practice partners to participate in the Programme
      / Subject Quality Day.

Commentary in relation to placements where there are innovations and good practice, or
where there is a need for improvement or where standards are at risk.

2.10      Action Plan

The standard is that the Action Plan must be fully completed.

The action plan from the Quality days must also be reported in this section.

3.0       Innovations and Good Practice

The Faculty of Health prides itself on innovations and good practice in programmes of study.
It is important that all examples of innovations and good practice are identified. Examples
will be used to contribute to the Faculty Annual Monitoring Report and disseminated in the
Faculty of Health Quality Newsletter.

4.0       Format for Programme Annual Monitoring Reports

The standards in relation to the format and style to be used in all Programme Annual
Monitoring Reports must be followed:

     There must be a footer stating the name of the programme and academic year
     Use Arial 11
     Student friendly, clear and succinct.
     Fair and factual comments.
     Use of the full word or phrase, followed by its abbreviation in brackets, before using the
      abbreviation.

5.0       Branches / pathways

It is the Programme Directors responsibility to collate and integrate all information from
branch / pathway leaders and compile the evidence. It is not acceptable to attach separate
branch / pathway reports to the Programme Annual Monitoring Reports.

6.0       Attachments to Programme Annual Monitoring Reports

The attachments to the Programme Annual Monitoring Report must only be the following:

     The programme statistics that are produced by the Planning and Statistics Office.
     The External Examiner’s Annual Report and the draft response letter to the EE.

Where they are not attached commentary must be provided.

7.0       Approving Programme Annual Monitoring Reports

The standards are that all Programme Annual Monitoring Reports must be:

     Signed off by the Head of Department.
     Peer reviewed
     Sent to the Associate Registrar (Quality Enhancement) to be placed on the Quality Office
      website – along with the peer review.


                                                                                             81
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Where a Professional body requires a copy of the Programme Annual Monitoring Report the
Programme Director must:

     Send it to the Director of Academic Quality in the first instance for review before being
      sent to a Professional body. The Quality Office will undertake the responsibility for
      sending an electronic copy of the Programme Annual Monitoring Report and any
      attachments to a Professional body and confirm to the Programme Director that it has
      been sent.

8.0    Parameters for Programme Annual Monitoring Reports

Matters relating to administration, staffing or changes in the Faculty should be raised with
the Head of School / Head of Department. It is not appropriate to raise such matters in the
Programme Annual Monitoring Report.

9.0 Conclusion

Programme Annual Monitoring Reports should report on the exceptions to the standards
identified. The exceptions will relate to areas where we see aspects of the programme that
can be enhanced and also where innovation and good practice go beyond the standards.

Centre for Academic Quality and Governance May 2009




                                                                                                  82
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                                                                  Appendix 15
                                        Faculty of Health

       Programme Annual Monitoring Reports Peer Review Process and Guidelines

1.0       Introduction

Peer review is a quality assessment tool and widely regarded as a highly effective means for
encouraging collaborative learning. Peer reviews of Programme Annual Monitoring Reports
aim to;

          measure adherence to the Faculty of Health exception reporting guidelines and
           standards;

           identify good practice and innovation that can be shared with other programme
           teams;

          identify where standards have not been met or where standards are at risk of
           attainment and how they are being addressed;

          monitor student progression, retention, achievement and withdrawals with a view to
           identifying action needed to sustain or improve those outcomes;

          consider comments from students and staff about the quality of the learning
           experience;

          ensure that the external examiners’ comments have been addressed;

          where appropriate, identify how the conditions and recommendations made by
           approval, review and re-approval of panels or the Faculty Academic Standards and
           Quality Enhancement Business Group have been met;

          ensure external quality assurance agencies and / or professional / regulatory body
           standards and circulars have been addressed;

          ensure the programme specification has been updated if necessary;

          inform the Faculty’s and University’s academic planning processes, including its
           plans for the deployment of learning resources;

          inform the External Examiners of the outcomes of the peer review;

After Faculty Board approved the Faculty of Health Guidelines and Standards for Exception
Reporting in Programme Annual Monitoring Reports, Programme Directors made a request
for the current peer review process to change, with an inter-professional focus and led by the
Programme Directors.

This paper sets out the process and guidelines for the Peer Reviews of Programme Annual
Monitoring Reports.

2.0       Pre Peer Review Process

Each academic year Registry sends the Programme Annual Monitoring Report template to
the Centre for Academic Quality. The template is sent to all Programme Directors with a


                                                                                                83
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
defined date for submitting the Programme Annual Monitoring Report. The defined date for
submitting Programme Annual Monitoring Reports is important as they contribute to the
Faculty of Health Annual Monitoring Overview Report which is submitted to and reviewed by
members of ASQEC.

The completed Programme Annual Monitoring Report (Annual Report) must be signed and
dated by the Head of Department. By signing and dating the Head of Department is in
agreement with the content and quality of the Report.

One electronic and two hard copies of the completed Annual Report will be submitted to the
Quality Office by the definitive date. Where an Annual Report has not been submitted by the
definitive date the Head of Department will be informed.

The Quality Office will identify the programmes that will participate in the same group peer
review process. Programmes will be chosen to facilitate inter-professional exchange of
information across professions and academic levels.

Group peer reviews will consist of a maximum of five and minimum of two Programme
Directors and a Facilitator. The Facilitator will be nominated by the Quality Office.

All participants in the Peer Review will receive an electronic copy of each Annual Report.

The Facilitator will be sent a Peer Review Annual Monitoring Report electronically for each
programme which must be completed, signed and dated for each Annual Report (see
appendix 1 with the guidance). Each Programme Director will also be sent a form to identify
the areas for discussion.

3.0       Peer Review Process

Peer Review facilitates an objective systematic process to assess, monitor and evaluate
Programme Annual Monitoring Reports against agreed criteria. It aims to encourage
supportive dialogue between Programme Directors.

The date and time for all peer reviews will be organised by Quality Office through liaison with
the relevant Programme Directors. The process should take no more than two hours. The
room will be organised by the Quality Office.

Programme Directors and the Facilitator will read the Programme Annual Monitoring Reports
prior to the meeting ensuring the report has adhered to the Faculty of Health exception
reporting guidelines and standards (available on the Quality Office website).

The process will involve reflection and evaluation to provide a balanced and objective
appraisal of the past year’s achievements.

Peer Reviewers' comments should take account of the areas identified in the boxes of the
Peer Review proforma, and acknowledge good practice and innovation, where standards
have not been met or where they are at risk of attainment. Peer reviewers will assess the
areas for enhancement constructively, and discuss how they could be achieved taking into
consideration the aims of the Peer Review process.

4.0       Completing the Peer Review Report

The Peer Review Report consists of sections using Headings reflecting the guidance for
completing Programme Annual Reports. It is important for the Facilitator to complete all the
sections to provide a comprehensive review.

                                                                                               84
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
The Facilitator will encourage Programme Directors to explore and reflect on all areas that
have been identified in the boxes of the Peer Review Proforma (these must be deleted when
completing the review).

It is also important for the peer review group to identify good practice and innovation and this
should be identified in the relevant section. Where standards have not been met or are at
risk of attainment these must also be identified, advice and supportive ideas from the peer
group members should be documented.

4.1       Guide for discussion and completing the Pro Forma

Has the report been completed following the Faculty of Health Guidelines and Standards for
exception reporting? YES/NO

If no state the reason given by the Programme Director

Has the report been signed and dated for approval by the Head of School /
Department YES/NO

If no state the reason given by the Programme Director

Previous Years Action Plan

What were the previous year’s action plans? Have they been achieved, if not what were the
reasons identified. If they have not been achieved this action should be recorded in the
action plan for next academic year.
What was the effectiveness of the action taken? If the action was not as effective as
expected the reasons for this should be analysed and the rationale for the team’s alternative
strategy explained.
Does the previous year’s action plan address the conditions, recommendations or any minor
changes made during the academic year?
If a particular action point or minor modification needs to be monitored over a longer period
ensure this is done as it should be repeated in Section 12.

Recruitment and Admissions

Review the statistics presented which must agree with those in the appendices, if they do
not agree please see the Planning and Statistics office.
What is the contract target and was it met, if not are there reasons why?
Evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment strategy and the admissions policy.
Discuss the implications of any statistical analysis about admissions and/or applications
prepared by the Faculty. Questions you might find it useful to consider include:

         Did recruitment go well this year? If it was better than expected why was this? If it
          was disappointing analyse the reasons why and identify action which could be taken
          to improve matters
         Does the information provided for prospective students need to be revised / updated?
          Were students adequately informed about the admissions process?
         Has the nature of the student intake changed, for example, in terms of their entry
          qualifications or past experience? If so do these changes have wider implications for
          the programme?




                                                                                             85
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
         What is the body in terms of ethnicity, gender and age does the analysis indicate any
          significant changes to the student profile? Do these changes need to be reflected in
          changes to the operation and delivery of the programme?
         If the programme has different modes of study has recruitment to any of the modes
          changed significantly? If so why was this?

Progression

Analyse the statistics presented if they do not agree with any other data please see the
Planning and Statistics office.
Consider the progression rate of students indicating, the number of students who have
progressed with and without conditions for the modules undertaken. Analysis of the
progression should consider the influence of individual modules and the influence of ethnicity
and gender on the progression statistics.
What percentage or number of the total student cohort progress to the next academic year
carrying trailing modules?
How many students are currently trailing modules?

Retention

Analyse the statistics if they do not agree please see the Planning and Statistics office.
In this section the numbers of students and reasons for withdrawal and should be
considered.
This might include the time of year this happens and consider the influence of ethnicity and
gender on the statistics.
Can the reason why students leave be identified if so identify what they were.
How many withdraw, with and without credit
Number of students entering into the next academic year
Does the attrition rate exceed the accepted benchmark of 13%
How is the Programme team improving student retention and reducing attrition?

Achievement

Analyse the statistics if they do not agree please see the Planning and Statistics office.
Discuss the awards achieved including level of award obtained
Is the spread of classification or other award (where this applies) appropriate?
Numbers and destinations of those achieving employment
Is there any feedback on the effectiveness of those achieving the award?
Have there been any cases of Fitness for Practice – if so proved brief details - do not name
students or persons involved.

Outcomes of Module Evaluations

This section of the report should be concerned with the outcomes of the Faculty’s evaluation
of individual modules during the year.
Each module coordinator should have completed an annual module evaluation which
considers the evaluation of practice based learning or placements forming part of the
programme. Feedback from module coordinators / course team members must be included
in the evaluations.
Each module must indicate the percentage pass rate for the first and subsequent attempt for
students that are undertaking that module for the first time. The modules that fall below the
University’s Benchmarks must have an action plan as to how this issue will be addressed.




                                                                                             86
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Benchmarks are as follows;

All modules

At least 55% or more of the students registered for assessment in a module should pass the
module at the first attempt;
After resits at least 75% of the students registered for assessment in a module should have
passed the module;

In the case of students enrolled on levels 5 and 6 of undergraduate degrees (except
foundation degrees) benchmark (2 should be replaced by the following benchmarks:
     after resits at least 80% of the students registered for assessment in a level 5 module
        should pass the module;
     after resits at least 90% of the students registered for assessment in a level 6 or level
        7 module should pass the module.

Modules designated 5/6 should be treated as though they are level 5 for the purposes of this
analysis.

Where modules have not been evaluated or met the Benchmarks explore this issue with the
Programme Director and ascertain how they will improve the process

Other Forms of Student Feedback

Discuss significant points made about the programme (rather than individual modules) from
the other forms of student feedback used by the team to measure student satisfaction.
These mechanisms could include meetings of the board of studies, Staff/Student
Committees, Faculty student questionnaires etc.
Explore with the Programme Director any issues which relate to the programme that have
been identified in the student satisfaction survey
Ask them to identify and provide a rationale for any actions arising from the evaluation of
these outcomes.
Has the Programme Annual Monitoring Report been approved by the Boards of Studies

External Examiners Comments

The External Examiners annual report should be attached to the Programme Annual Report.
Explore the comments made by the external examiner(s) before identifying the detailed
points raised by individual external examiners and ask how each one is to be addressed.
Sometimes external examiners may put forward ideas for consideration, which are
suggestions rather the identification of a need for action. Comments made by the External
Examiners at the examination board should also be considered in the Annual report where
appropriate. You may wish to clarify this when discussing their comments. Lastly, if an
external examiner has suggested something that is inappropriate or which cannot be
achieved the reasons for this should be explained.
Has the Pro Vice Chancellor made any comments and how has the Programme Director
addressed them
Is there a response letter to the External Examiners Annual Report.
External Examiners should be sent a copy of the Programme Annual Report once
completed.

Placements

This section should be completed only if the programme has placements, where students go
into practice areas to complete competencies / standards of proficiency

                                                                                            87
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
This section should review any areas of concern; address any issues highlighted by student
feedback and draw attention to any good practice.

Matters identified by the Faculty for Monitoring

The material to be included in this section should be decided by the Faculty. If the Faculty
has not identified a matter for special consideration this section should be omitted. This
may include addressing recommendations from a validation and any items relating to Equal
Opportunities that may have been raised at Boards of Studies.
Has monitoring been completed?
Have all actions and recommendations been completed since the recent approval event (if
appropriate)?

Action Plan

Is there a clear action plan for the coming academic year? Does the report identify actions
using SMART - Specific, Measurable, Achievable Realistic and Timely.
This section should summarise the action proposed above as a series of bullet points. It
should also include action points arising from conditions or recommendations made by
approval / re-approval / review panels or arising from visits by the professional body or other
external bodies. The section is arranged so that action to be taken at programme, Faculty or
institutional level can be easily distinguished. The timescale for completion of this action
should also be identified. This section must identify the staff responsible for action and set a
timescale for that action. The second term Board of Studies must include an agenda item on
how the action is progressing.

Overall Areas of Good Practice and Innovation

In this section summarise the overall areas of good practice and innovation

Overall Areas for Development and Action with a timeline

In this section summarise the overall areas for development and action with a time line

5.0       Outcomes of the Peer Review Process

The facilitator will complete the Peer Review report for each programme within 10 working
days and submit a signed and dated electronic copy to the Quality Office this will then be
disseminated to the Programme Director and Head of Department for that particular
programme.

The Peer Review report will be made available to the External Examiner electronically and
placed on the Quality Office website.

Where areas for improvement are identified in the Programme Annual Monitoring Report
they will be discussed at the Boards of Studies, with the objective of improving effectiveness
ensuring there is an identified action plan.

Good practice and innovation in a Programme Annual Monitoring Report will be identified
and disseminated in the Quality Newsletter.




                                                                                             88
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
6.0       Conclusion

Peer review of Programme Annual Monitoring Reports allows Programme Directors to
receive constructive feedback and advice from their peers to advance growth and support
efforts to improve Programmes of study, sharing good practice and innovation.

Quality Office
August 2009




                                                                                          89
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
                                       Faculty of Health

                        Programme Annual Monitoring Report Peer Review

Title of Programme:___________________________________

Academic Level____________________________________

Is the programme approved by a Professional Regulator YES/NO (please delete).

If yes what is the name of the professional regulator. GSCC/NMC/HPC


Name of the Department that is responsible for the programme
___________________________________

Name of Facilitator: ____________________________________

Names of participants in the Group Peer Review:

____________________________________

____________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________


Date of Peer Review:________________

Has the report been completed following the Faculty of Health Guidelines and Standards for
exception reporting? YES/NO


Has the report been signed and dated for approval by the Head of School / Department
YES/NO


Previous Years Action Plan




                                                                                        90
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Recruitment and Admissions




Progression



Retention



Achievement



Outcomes of Module Evaluations



Other Forms of Student Feedback



External Examiners Comments



Placements



Matters identified by the Faculty for Monitoring



Action Plan



Overall Areas of Good Practice and Innovation


Overall Areas for Development and Action with a timeline




Signed:_______________________________________ (Facilitator)

Date: _______________________________________


                                                               91
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Annex 15
                                       Faculty of Health

                        Programme Annual Monitoring Report Peer Review

Title of Programme:

Academic Level

Is the programme approved by a Professional Regulator

If yes what is the name of the professional regulator. GSCC/NMC/HPC

Name of the Department that is responsible for the programme ___________________

Name of Facilitator: ______________


Names of participants in the Group Peer Review:

Date of Peer Review:

Has the report been completed following the Faculty of Health Guidelines and Standards for
exception reporting? YES/NO


Has the report been signed and dated for approval by the Head of School /
Department YES/NO


Previous Years Action Plan




Recruitment and Admissions




Progression



Retention



Achievement




                                                                                        92
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)
Outcomes of Module Evaluations



Other Forms of Student Feedback



External Examiners Comments




Placements



Matters identified by the Faculty for Monitoring



Action Plan


Overall Areas of Good Practice and Innovation


Overall Areas for Development and Action with a timeline




Signed (Facilitator)
Date:




                                                           93
GAP v 9 ii (15/09/09)

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:14
posted:2/11/2012
language:
pages:93