Docstoc

Quality Assurance _ Quality Improvement

Document Sample
Quality Assurance _ Quality Improvement Powered By Docstoc
					Quality Assurance / Quality Improvement
            Programme for
    Schools/Faculties/Units/Themes
              2007-2008




        Quality Improvement Plan


          Insert Unit Name here


            Insert date here
Contents


  1. Introduction


  2. Response To Recommendations in the Peer Review Group Report


  3. Summary of One-Year Plan


  4. Summary of Three-Year Plan


  5. Appendices
This document presents the format of the Unit Quality Improvement Plan. It is
also available in softcopy from the Quality Promotion Unit website.


1.        INTRODUCTION

          Give a very brief introduction to the approach       taken   in   the
          development of the Quality Improvement Plan
2.   RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PEER REVIEW
     GROUP REPORT

     Please outline the Unit’s response to the recommendations in the Peer
     Review Group Report. It would be helpful (for the external reader) to
     identify any areas where similar recommendations emanated from
     both the Self-Assessment Report and the Peer Review Group Report.

     The Unit must make a response to ALL the recommendations in the
     Report. The Unit (and the University) are required, under the
     Universities Act (1997) to implement the recommendations of the
     Report, unless they are unreasonable or impractical.

     Please outline the Unit response using the table contained in this
     Section of this document (see below).

     In general, recommendations fall into three categories

         Recommendation       concerning    shortcomings     in    services,
         procedures and facilities which are within the control of the Unit.
        Recommendations        concerning    shortcoming     in    services,
         procedures and facilities which are outside the control of the Unit.
        Recommendations concerning inadequate staffing or facilities
         which require capital investment.

     The Unit should also indicate the timeline for implementation of the
     recommendations

         Recommendations that have already been implemented
         Recommendation that will be implemented within 1 year (these
         will also form part of the one-year plan.
        Recommendations that will be implementation within 3 years
         (these will also form part of the three-year plan)
        Recommendations that will not be implemented as they can be
         demonstrated to be unreasonable or impractical
 2 Recommendations for Improvement for SCHOOL/UNIT/CENTRE
 The following notation is used in the recommendations for improvement.

 P1: A recommendation that is important and requires urgent action.
 P2: A recommendation that is important, but can (or perhaps must) be addressed on a more extended time scale.
 P3: A recommendation which merits serious consideration but which is not considered to be critical to the quality of the ongoing
 activities in the Unit.

 Additionally, the PRG indicate the level(s) of the University where action is required:
 A:     Administrative Unit
 U:     University Executive/Senior Management
 S/F: School and/or Faculty
 Or other units, for example OVPLI, OVPR as applicable.
                 PRG Recommendation (Draft Report)                                  Response
      Addressee

                  Priority




 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
etc
                          School of XXXX XXXX Quality Improvement Plan (2006-2007)




3.   SUMMARY OF THE ONE-YEAR PLAN
     (The one-year plan should contain actions and timelines. It should
     also assign responsibility for the actions to named persons or parts of
     the organisation.)




                                                                     Page 6 of 8
                          School of XXXX XXXX Quality Improvement Plan (2006-2007)




4.   SUMMARY OF THE THREE-YEAR PLAN
     (The three-year plan should contain actions and timelines. It should
     also assign responsibility for the actions to named persons or parts of
     the organisation.)




                                                                     Page 7 of 8
                                  School of XXXX XXXX Quality Improvement Plan (2006-2007)




APPENDICES

     1. Unit Quality Committee (for the Self-Assessment Report)


     2. Peer Review Group


     3. Unit Quality Committee (for the Quality Improvement Plan)


     4. PRIORITISED RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS

This section should only contain a list, prioritised by the unit’s Quality co-
ordination Committee, of resource requirements necessary to implement the
recommendations outlined in the Self- Assessment and Peer Review Group
Reports. Estimates of the cost involved should also be included.

Resources for Quality Improvement will be allocated by the University under 2
separate funds:

A.              The HEA Quality Assurance Programme (funded under the National
     Development Plan) has a sub measure for Quality Improvement following
     Quality Review. Each year, the HEA allocate a sum of money to the University
     to be used to fund some of the recommendations from Quality Review
     Reports. In total the University received €80K in 2008 for this purpose.

B.              In addition, the University sets aside a portion of its core Budget,
     under the sub-heading: Quality Promotion and Strategic Development Fund to
     fund Quality Improvement measures arising from the recommendations in
     Quality Review Reports.


1.      ………………..

2.      ………………..

3. ………………….




                                                                             Page 8 of 8