section photograph

Handbook for the General Osteopathic Council review of osteopathic courses and course providers, second edition

General Osteopathic CouncilQAA 086 09/05

Part one

Introduction

1 With effect from 1 January 2005, the General Osteopathic Council (GOsC) appointed the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) to conduct reviews of osteopathic programmes of study and of the institutions that provide them. The resulting review method is known here as GOsC review. In this arrangement the GOsC undertakes, via QAA, the task of reviewing educational programmes and providers. The GOsC's statutory responsibility to report to the Privy Council is not touched by this new arrangement. In short, visitors are engaged by the GOsC via QAA and they report to the GOsC. Having received a report of the visitors, the GOsC forms its own view and communicates the GOsC's view to the Privy Council in the accepted manner.

2 The purpose of this Handbook, available in paper and at www.qaa.ac.uk/health/GOsC is to outline how the review method will be operated. The GOsC review method is, in effect, three different methods:

  • initial recognition
  • monitoring, and
  • renewal of recognition of programmes.

Differences between the methods are explained in the text and summarised as a table in Annex M.

3 QAA will manage reviews of osteopathic educational provision and providers following the general principles and style adopted elsewhere in QAA's review methods. Reviews managed by QAA for the GOsC will respect both the statutory requirements placed on the GOsC and its Education Committee, and the purposes, values and standards of QAA.

Terminology

4 The three types and purposes of review undertaken for the GOsC are described here as:

  • 'recognition review', initial recognition of a qualification or award
  • 'monitoring review', a form of mid-cycle review, and
  • 'renewal review', renewal of recognition.

5 Traditionally, those undertaking recognised qualification (RQ) scrutiny for the GOsC have been known as 'visitors', and this term is embedded in legislation. In this revised review method the term 'visitor', meaning reviewer, is retained. However, it is important for all parties to appreciate that a GOsC review typically covers four to six weeks, and that the visit elements of the review occupy only days.

6 A Review Coordinator, who is contracted by QAA, normally leads recognition and renewal visitors, and may lead monitoring reviews. The Review Coordinator manages the review but does not participate in the formulation of findings and recommendations. A QAA officer normally leads monitoring reviews, which may be conducted entirely by documentary analysis but will normally include an element of site visiting. The QAA officer does not participate in the formulation of the findings or any recommendation.

7 QAA aims to define clear and explicit standards for public information and as reference points for our review activities. QAA has worked with the higher education sector and other stakeholders on a range of initiatives collectively known as the Academic Infrastructure. The elements of the Academic Infrastructure are:

  • the frameworks for higher education qualifications
  • subject benchmark statements
  • programme specifications
  • the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice)
  • progress files.

Details of each element of the Academic Infrastructure are provided in Part two of this Handbook.

Review recommendation

8 In recognition and renewal reviews, the visitors will make a formal recommendation to the GOsC about the provision reviewed. For each programme, the formal recommendation will be expressed as one of the following:

  • approval without conditions
  • approval with conditions
  • approval denied.

9 Where an immediately preceding Privy Council decision on the provision is 'approval with conditions', the method of monitoring review will also come to a formal judgement recommending one of the three above categories.

10 Visitors' findings and any formal recommendation will be passed through the Education Committee for deliberation within the GOsC. The GOsC may choose not to accept either the findings or formal recommendation of a team of visitors.

11 GOsC review, as managed by QAA, replaces the educational provision review aspect of the GOsC's RQ process. Key elements of the RQ process have been retained, for example, a review starts with the supply of a self-evaluation document (SED), and forms of initial recognition review and renewal of recognition review conducted by two osteopaths and at least one lay member. As in the RQ process, GOsC review, managed by QAA, will include observation of clinical teaching and observation of non-clinical teaching.

12 With the involvement of QAA, some details of the review have changed. For example, all review visitors will receive more formal training, lay visitors are likely to be drawn from a wider constituency and reviews will be led by a QAA officer or by a contracted Review Coordinator. However, the RQ process of the GOsC was already close to the principles and style of QAA review.

13 The main purposes of the reviews are to enable the GOsC to make recommendations on approval to the Privy Council, as in the RQ process, and to assure itself more generally that providers of programmes and the programmes themselves are operating effectively.

14 QAA provides to the Education Committee of the GOsC objective information through review reports that address three interdependent areas.

  • Reporting on clinical and academic standards in osteopathy is concerned with the appropriateness of the intended learning outcomes set by the provider in relation to Standard 2000: Standard of Proficiency (Standard 2000), any relevant subject benchmark statements developed since 2004, qualification levels and the overall aims of the provision, the effectiveness of curricular content and assessment arrangements, in relation to the intended learning outcomes, and the achievement of these outcomes by students.
  • Reporting on the quality of learning opportunities in osteopathy is concerned with the effectiveness of the teaching, the clinical and academic support and the learning resources in promoting student learning, achievement and progression across the programme(s) involved in the review.
  • Reporting on governance and management is concerned with the extent to which the provider's governance and management (including financial control and quality assurance arrangements) are sufficient to manage existing operations and respond to development and change.

Period of application

15 Reviews taking place in the 2005-06 academic year will have real outcomes (findings and formal recommendation, as detailed below), but will also have a status as pilots of the new method. The pilot reviews will be evaluated, with elements of the evaluation coming from:

  • the GOsC
  • the providers reviewed
  • visitors and review coordinators
  • QAA officers.

16 During 2005-06, visitors will expect to see providers making progress in taking into account the Code of practice, published by QAA. The review methods described here will be subject to possible modification as a result of evaluation.

Review visitors

17 Visitors are chosen for their subject expertise and professional experiences, their experience in teaching, their knowledge of education governance and/or their experience of quality assurance in education. With accommodations made for the incorporation of lay (non-osteopath) visitors, and for the particular focus of the GOsC review, the current subject specialist criteria of QAA will apply in the selection and operation of visitors. Applications for appointment as a visitor are scrutinised by both the GOsC and QAA. The GOsC remains the appointing body in the recruitment, selection and deployment of visitors. Specialist osteopath visitors will be registered with the GOsC or, in exceptional circumstances, with a body fulfilling the same statutory/regulatory role in another country. All visitors will be required to comply with the current declaration of interests requirements of the GOsC and QAA, and to respect the professional code of the GOsC. Matters of commercial sensitivity in the osteopathy sector suggest that principals and vice-principals of providing institutions should not normally be review visitors in the review method during the 2005-06 academic year. For similar reasons, the heads of osteopathic programmes, departments, schools and faculties in publicly-funded institutions are discouraged from applying to be visitors in the 2005-06 academic year. In consultation with QAA, the GOsC will review this policy during the calendar year 2006. Further details of the roles of review visitors are set out in Annex C.

Review teams

18 The review team in recognition and renewal reviews will normally consist of a Review Coordinator, two specialist osteopath visitors and one lay visitor. The review team in a monitoring review will normally consist of one Assistant Director or Development Officer from QAA and two visitors, these being either two osteopath visitors or, more exceptionally, one osteopath visitor and one lay visitor (as suggested by any outstanding conditions of recognition or previous negative findings). An additional specialist adviser may be appointed to conduct financial scrutiny. A Review Coordinator may lead a monitoring review in place of a QAA officer. In advance of the review, QAA will communicate to the GOsC the suggested composition of the review team. Providers to be reviewed will have the opportunity to comment on suggested review team composition. Responsibility for the appointment of visitors rests with the GOsC. Further details of review teams are set out in Annex E.

Recognition review

19 Recognition review (initial recognition) will be preceded by a formal application from the candidate teaching institution to the GOsC. This application must use the pro forma and procedures supplied by the GOsC. The completed pro forma must reach the GOsC offices at least 18 months before the proposed starting date for an RQ programme of study. However, the GOsC can give no undertaking that application at least 18 months before the proposed starting date for an RQ programme of study will necessarily result in a decision, favourable or not, on RQ status within that 18-month period. In initial recognition review, visitors may choose, at any time in advance of the planned visit to the intending education provider, to inform the GOsC that the documentary evidence indicates that the current application has little chance of achieving 'approval' or 'approval with conditions'. Any such indication must be unanimously agreed and passed to the GOsC through the Review Coordinator. In these circumstances, the GOsC may choose to advise the intending provider of the visitors' concerns and may further choose to advise the intending provider to withdraw the current application for RQ status. If the application for RQ status is withdrawn, the GOsC and QAA will terminate the review immediately. On termination of the review, QAA will require the visitors to provide for GOsC a written report on their scrutiny. As far as possible, this report will follow the standard report template (Annex L).

Features of the GOsC review

20 GOsC review is based on self-evaluation. The task for visitors is to test, by means of their own observations and analyses of the evidence supplied by the provider, the statements made in the SED. The review aide-mémoire in Annex B provides guidance on the questions likely to lead to the evidence necessary to offer findings on clinical and academic standards, the quality of learning opportunities and on governance and management. Within findings on governance and management, visitors will report on the maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality. In recognition and renewal reviews, and in some monitoring reviews, visitors will make a formal recommendation to the GOsC as part of reporting. In reviews conducted from September 2005, visitors will make reference to the Academic Infrastructure developed by QAA in consultation with providers of higher education (HE).

21 The key features of GOsC review include:

  • a focus on the students' learning experience, frequently to include observation by visitors of clinical and non-clinical teaching
  • peer review; teams include currently registered osteopaths and lay visitors with HE interests (Annex C provides details of the role and responsibilities of visitors)
  • flexibility of process to minimise disruption to the provider; there is negotiation between QAA, on behalf of the GOsC, and the provider about the timings of the review
  • a process conducted in an atmosphere of mutual trust; the visitors do not normally expect to find areas for improvement that the provider has not identified in the SED
  • an emphasis on governance and management, to include the maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality and, from September 2005, increasing engagement with the Academic Infrastructure
  • use of the SED as the key document; this should have a reflective and evaluative focus
  • an onus on the provider to supply all relevant information; any material identified in the SED should be readily available to visitors
  • evidence-based judgements
  • using existing information and documented evidence, and preferring any annual report routinely supplied to the GOsC and internal review documents to form the SED. Visitors will use the provider's information and evidence that is available electronically, for example, on a website
  • ensuring that the amount of time taken to conduct a review is the minimum necessary to enable the visitors to reach robust findings and recommendations
  • providing transparency of process through the use of published GOsC criteria, this Handbook and, increasingly from September 2005, the Academic Infrastructure
  • the role of the Institutional Contact, who is a member of the provider's staff
  • close monitoring by QAA officers.

22 QAA makes great efforts to assure the quality of the review process. A QAA officer is assigned to each review for the entire review process. Activities include composing the review team before it is proposed to GOsC for approval, consulting the provider on team composition, confirming that the SED forms a basis for the review to proceed, and monitoring the progress of the review through the electronic folder created by QAA. The QAA officer will accompany visitors on a sample of visits and final meetings. A QAA officer will be present at any final meeting where the Review Coordinator has indicated the possibility of a judgement to recommend 'approval denied'. The QAA officer will be present at some final meetings of visitors where a recommendation of 'approval with conditions' is likely. Officers also follow the progress of producing the report. In some circumstances, GOsC officers may attend review visits and meetings as observers.

The review process

Review timing

23 The timing of reviews will enable reports and recommendations to be passed to the GOsC and then to the Privy Council so that decisions on approval can be made and transmitted in a timely fashion. In particular, the planning of reviews will normally be made in consultation with the GOsC in respect of its timetable for Education Committee meetings.

The general outline of a review

24 The review process comprises three stages:

  • preparation for the review
  • the review period
  • the reporting stage.

25 The pattern of review will normally be:

a preparation for the review

  • submission by the provider of an SED.

b the review period

  • electronic discussion of the SED by the visitors through QAA's secure communications system
  • request to the provider for more documents to be supplied electronically and/or on the days of visit
  • further electronic discussion by visitors
  • a two-day visit to the provider towards the end of the review period (normally one day for monitoring reviews)
  • a half-day final visitor meeting followed by an oral debrief for the provider.

c the reporting stage

  • drafting of the report
  • one-month period for the provider to comment on the draft
  • consideration of the provider's comments and redrafting as necessary
  • supply of resulting draft to GOsC
  • oral introduction of draft to GOsC's Education Committee
  • final correction and styling of the report.

As at September 2005, the report is not published (GOsC policy under review).

Annex D provides a timeline for the review stages and a flowchart of relevant documents.

Review length

26 The review period starts with visitors reading and commenting on the documentation supplied by the programme provider. The period of review will normally be about six weeks for recognition and renewal reviews and four weeks for monitoring reviews. Within the review period of six weeks, recognition and renewal visitors will normally spend two days on site at the teaching institution, with a further half-day assigned to a final meeting of the visitors, not necessarily on a teaching or clinical practice site. Within the review period of four weeks, monitoring visitors will normally spend at least one day on site at the teaching institution. Where a programme operates under approval with conditions in teaching and learning, student achievement or assessment, or where the GOsC has asked visitors to make particular enquiry into arrangements for the external examination of students' clinical competence, visitors in monitoring reviews will normally spend time at the provider's site(s). During the 2005-06 academic year, it is likely that all monitoring visits will include an element of site visit.

27 The review period may be extended with the agreement of the provider where it is felt that enquiry has not been completed. Annex D provides a timeline for the review stages and a flowchart of relevant documents.

Stage 1: Preparation for review

28 The process begins with QAA liaising with the GOsC in order to establish a programme of reviews and to select the proposed review teams. Annex E sets out the criteria for review team composition. On completion of any further enquiries, QAA opens a dialogue with each programme provider, involving such matters as the appropriate timing of the review and its visit component.

29 The provider's SED should be accompanied by the definitive course document and/or by the current programme specification. The provider submits its SED, including the definitive course document(s) and/or programme specification(s), to QAA normally no later than eight weeks before the agreed start of the review. The SED should pay particular attention to any comments or conditions present in any previous reviews and should be submitted to QAA with a standard cover sheet (Annex B). QAA prefers to receive the SED electronically. In addition to the electronic copy, providers are asked to send three printed copies of the SED (ie annual report and/or any other documents that the provider wishes to supply at this stage) to QAA's Gloucester Office, with the appropriate form completed and attached to the front of the document. The first part of this form allows the provider to state clearly the documentation being submitted as the SED.

30 In 2005-06 monitoring and renewal reviews, the annual report of a provider may form the SED, or a first SED to which the provider may add more recent or more self-evaluative elements. A provider may choose to submit as an SED a purpose-written document. The provider's SED should always be accompanied by the definitive course document and/or by the current programme specification.

31 Once QAA has checked the cover sheet, the SED is sent to the Review Coordinator who analyses it against a standard template to ensure that it forms an appropriate basis on which the review may proceed (Annex B). The QAA officer with responsibility for the proposed review will also check the SED to ensure that it has the required contents and that a review can proceed (Annex B). When QAA has accepted the document as an adequate basis for review, the Review Coordinator or Assistant Director will ask the provider to send each review visitor an electronic and a paper copy of the SED. The visitors read and comment upon the SED; the Review Coordinator uses their comments to help plan and set priorities for the review.

32 At least one preliminary meeting takes place between the Review Coordinator/ QAA officer and relevant staff identified by the provider, normally no later than four weeks before the start (initial meeting) of the visit to the provider. At the preliminary meeting, the provider may be invited to send further documents to the visitors before the initial meeting. The standard agenda for the preliminary meeting is included in Annex F. It is important that the provider prepares for this meeting and is ready to discuss each item on the agenda by, for example, ensuring that it has up to date student data and timetables available at the meeting. The preliminary meeting gives key staff of the provider an opportunity to clarify their understanding of the review method. The Review Coordinator and/or QAA officer attending the preliminary meeting will ensure that a record of the agreements made at the preliminary meeting is shared with the provider and the visitors.

33 Annex G summarises the range of documents that visitors may typically expect to have access to (electronically and/or physically) and also provides guidance on the student work to be made available (usually on-site only).

Stage 2: The review period

34 The main period of review activity normally lasts about six weeks for initial recognition and renewal reviews, and usually four weeks for monitoring reviews. This main period develops from the agreed start of the review, through email discussions among visitors, through the later visit component, and concludes with the final meeting of the visitors and oral feedback to the provider. Visitors will spend some time on the provider's site. It is essential that visitors are able to gather sufficient evidence to allow them to test statements made in the SED, and to form robust judgements on governance and management, and on the quality and standards of the provision. Visitors reach a collective view on the provision at their final meeting.

35 Key meetings are held during the visit part of the review. These will be with subject and other staff from the provider, current and former students and, where appropriate, employers. Annex H provides an indicative agenda for meetings with current and former students, and Annex I sets out a draft agenda for any meetings with employers. The Institutional Contact appointed by the provider will be invited to attend debrief meetings with the visitors/Review Coordinator during the review and a formal oral debrief following the visitors' final meeting. Further details of the role of an Institutional Contact are given in Annex J.

First review team meeting

36 The visitors will discuss their early perceptions of the provision by secure email and will meet privately before the initial meeting with the provider to discuss the visit schedule and their emerging views. The Review Coordinator/QAA officer will ensure that there is a shared understanding of the nature and purpose of the review. The visitors will agree key questions for discussion with staff. Email discussion and the private first meeting of the visitors will:

  • clarify and confirm the scope and nature of the provision
  • reiterate the key features of the process of review
  • restate the required outcomes from the review process: findings, frequently a formal recommendation, and a report to the GOsC
  • clarify the role of the Institutional Contact in relation to the conduct of the review
  • confirm the visitors' understanding of, and comments on, the SED and any other documents supplied by the provider before the visit part of the review
  • identify key questions for discussion with the provider
  • agree the programme of activities, including their timing and location, for the review.

Initial meeting with the provider

37 With the agreement of the visitors, the subject provider may make a brief presentation, typically of no more than 10 minutes, to introduce the provision to be reviewed and to describe any developments since the SED was prepared. The Review Coordinator will remind both the visitors and the provider's representatives of the method and protocols of review and the schedule agreed so far. The provider and visitors will wish to confirm:

  • the nature and range of student work available for scrutiny, and the extent to which this constitutes a representative sample of student work in osteopathy
  • the nature and range of clinical and teaching observation available to the visitors
  • the availability of relevant documents held by the provider
  • the range and timing of internal quality assurance events, such as programme committee meetings, faculty boards or examination boards which might provide evidence. The visitors will need to decide whether attendance at such activity makes effective use of their time, or whether relevant evidence may be gathered by other means. If visitors wish to attend an event, this must be with the agreement of the provider
  • the agenda, timing and composition of meetings with the provider's staff, current and former students and, if applicable, employers
  • other practical arrangements for the review.

Other meetings

38 Other meetings will be arranged with staff to discuss clinical and academic standards, the quality of learning opportunities, and governance and management (including the maintenance and enhancement of academic standards and quality). There is no fixed pattern of meetings. The visitors and the provider will need to agree a plan for each review which enables the visitors to gain the evidence needed to arrive at findings and to make a recommendation with minimal disruption to the provider. The provider may wish to consider who is appropriate to attend these meetings. The review may also include meetings with employers and any clinical placement providers.

39 This flexibility in the application of the GOsC review method means that reviews may follow different patterns at different times.

40 The programme for the review may change, with agreement between the Review Coordinator, QAA officer and the Institutional Contact, depending on the review's progress. Critically, the Review Coordinator and the Institutional Contact need to maintain regular communication throughout the process to ensure a clear understanding about the need for particular arrangements.

41 In summary, meetings that will always take place are:

  • at least one preliminary meeting
  • the initial meeting with the provider
  • meeting(s) with staff
  • meeting with current students and, where possible, with former students
  • the visitors' private team meetings.

Testing the self-evaluation and gathering evidence

42 The visitors have a collective responsibility for gathering, verifying and sharing evidence so that they are able to test statements made in the SED and to develop findings on standards, quality, and governance and management. The visitors will share and discuss the evidence gathered, check their understanding and interpretation of data and triangulate different sources to arrive at collective conclusions. They will gather evidence on the elements of the review as set out in the aide-mémoire (Annex B). Normally, in the interest of corroboration, visitors gather evidence in meetings from operating, at a minimum, in pairs. The exception to this is teaching and learning observation (see Annex K). It is usual for a single visitor to observe a teaching and learning session in order that disruption to the students' learning experience is minimised.

43 The visitors are selective in their lines of enquiry and focus on their need to arrive at findings and a recommendation against clearly stated criteria. They refine emerging views on the provision against as wide a range of evidence as possible. For example, the perceptions expressed in meetings by students or staff are tested against other sources of evidence.

44 Documents are important sources of evidence that assist the visitors in evaluating the clinical and academic standards achieved, the quality of learning opportunities and the governance and management of the provider. Documentary evidence includes accounts, strategic plans, financial projections, insurance schedules, student work, internal reports from committees, boards and individual staff with relevant responsibilities; and external reports from examiners, verifiers, employers, validating and accrediting bodies. Visitors also gain evidence from observing some elements directly to evaluate their quality, for example, learning resources, lectures and seminars, and clinical classes.

45 Meetings with students are strictly confidential between the students attending and the visitors; no comments are attributed to individuals. The Institutional Contact does not attend meetings with students but may be consulted about matters raised by them.

46 The visitors will normally need to observe both academic and clinical teaching. Other evidence on teaching and learning is likely to come from a provider's scheme for peer observation of teaching, the analysis of student questionnaires and other arrangements for gathering feedback, the deployment of learning resources and from student performance in assessments. Visitors will observe both clinical and non-clinical teaching in renewal reviews, where possible in recognition reviews, and where relevant in monitoring reviews. A protocol for the observation of teaching is provided in Annex K.

47 Discussions held by the visitors both electronically and in person are used to evaluate the evidence gathered in order to form emerging views, and to determine which questions require further exploration. The visitors are required to evaluate how the evidence gathered compares with the provider's SED and to test the strength of the evidence supplied to support their findings and recommendation. The programme, its management and enhancement, and strategic governance and management will be questions for the visitors, as in the RQ process. From September 2005, visitors will also take a view on the progress made by the provider in taking account of the Academic Infrastructure. It is essential that discussion of the emerging views of the visitors should involve the whole review team, both on the provider's site and through discussion using the electronic folder for the review. If concerns emerge at any point, the provider will be given every opportunity, within an agreed timescale, to supply alternative and current evidence to address the visitors' concerns. On occasion this may require a negotiated extension of the review period. Visitors will respect the principle of proportionality in their enquiries and emerging conclusions.

48 All visitors are expected to identify, share, consider and evaluate evidence related to the programme(s) under review. The visitors keep notes of all meetings with staff and students, their observations and of comments on the quality of student work and its assessment. These should be analytical rather than descriptive, and refer to sources of information as well as to direct observations. Strengths and areas for improvement are summarised by visitors in such notes. Circulation of notes between the visitors, and collation of notes by the Review Coordinator, will assist the visitors in developing a collective evidence base on which findings and recommendations can be well founded.

Findings and formal recommendation

49 The visitors will meet in order to arrive at their final view on the provision. This meeting will normally be no later than two weeks after the visitors' last day of visit to the provider, and may be immediately after that visit. The visitors will share and consider all forms of evidence gathered during the review in order to enable them to arrive at an accurate and robust collective view. This view will be expressed in a review report structured to include the findings, formal recommendation and commentary on the provision sections. Annex L gives more details on the report structure. Not all monitoring reviews will need to include a formal recommendation.

50 Views about the clinical and academic standards are made on the appropriateness of the intended learning outcomes set by the provider in relation to Standard 2000, relevant subject benchmark statements, qualification levels and the overall aims of the provision; on the effectiveness of curricular content and assessment arrangements in relation to the intended learning outcomes and Standard 2000; and on actual student achievement, both clinical and non-clinical.

51 Views about the quality of learning opportunities are made on the effectiveness of teaching and the learning opportunities; on the effectiveness of learning resources, including staff; and of the academic support provided to students to enable them to progress in their studies.

52 Views about governance and management are concerned with the extent to which the provider's governance, management, financial control and quality assurance arrangements are sufficient to manage existing operations and respond to development and change.

Views on clinical and academic standards

53 The visitors will assess, for each programme, whether there are clear intended learning outcomes that appropriately reflect a range of reference points: Standard 2000, relevant subject benchmark statements and the level of the award as set out in The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ). More detail on these reference points is provided in Part two of this Handbook. The reference points are provided to assist visitors in determining whether provision is meeting the standards expected by the clinical and academic osteopathic community generally. If the visitors find that the intended learning outcomes do not match those expectations, it is unlikely that they can have confidence in the standards of the provision and make a consequent recommendation for approval.

54 The visitors will assess whether the structure and content of the curriculum are effective in enabling students to achieve the intended learning outcomes for the programme and the requirements of Standard 2000. Providers should be able to demonstrate how each intended learning outcome is supported by the curriculum. For this purpose, the term 'curriculum' includes both the content necessary to develop students' understanding and the acquisition of knowledge, and the opportunities to develop clinical and other practical skills and abilities where these are stated as the intended learning outcomes of a module. If students cannot develop significant intended learning outcomes through the curriculum, it will be unlikely that the visitors can have confidence in the standards of the provision.

55 The visitors will assess whether the curriculum content is appropriate to each stage of the programme, to the level of the award and to Standard 2000. Providers should be able to demonstrate how the design of the curriculum secures clinical, academic and general professional progression by imposing increasing demands on the learner, over time, in the areas of the acquisition of knowledge and skills, the capacity for conceptualisation and increasing autonomy in learning and clinical practice. From September 2005, the visitors will refer to the guidance on programme design in the Code of practice, Section 7: Programme approval, monitoring and review.

56 The visitors will evaluate whether assessment is designed appropriately to measure student achievement of the intended learning outcomes. Providers should be able to demonstrate how student achievement of intended learning outcomes is assessed, and that, in each case, the assessment method selected is appropriate to the intended learning outcomes' nature. Confidence in the security and integrity of the assessment process, with appropriate involvement of external examiners, is essential. The range of assessments planned should include some that have a formative function and provide students with prompt feedback to help them progress in their studies, and to assist them in the development of their intellectual skills. There should be clear and appropriate criteria for different classes or levels of performance, and these criteria should be communicated effectively to students. If significant intended learning outcomes are not assessed, or if the visitors have serious doubts about the integrity of the assessment procedures, it will be unlikely that they can have confidence in the standards of the provision. From September 2005, the visitors will refer to the Code of practice, Section 6: Assessment of students.

57 The visitors will assess whether student achievement matches the intended learning outcomes and level of the award. The visitors will consider external examiners' reports from the three years prior to the review, and will also sample student work. The balance between reliance upon the reports of external examiners and direct sampling of student work will depend on the confidence the visitors have in the internal examining and verification arrangements of the provider. From September 2005, the visitors will refer to the Code of practice, Section 4: External examining.

Views on the quality of learning opportunities

58 The visitors will assess the quality of the learning opportunities offered to students against the intended learning outcomes of the programmes. In reviewing the provision, visitors will scrutinise both clinical and non-clinical areas of teaching and learning. In renewal review, there will be direct observation of teaching and learning in both clinical and non-clinical areas. In recognition review, where possible, there will also be observation of the institution's teaching and learning in both clinical and non-clinical areas.

59 The visitors will also make use of secondary evidence on teaching and learning. In all types of review, the visitors will assess the effectiveness of teaching and learning in relation to curriculum content, Standard 2000 and programme aims.

60 The visitors will evaluate student progression by considering their recruitment, academic support and progression within the programme.

61 In arriving at findings about learning resources, the visitors will assess whether the minimum resources necessary to deliver the programme(s) are available, and will then consider how effectively resources are used in support of the intended learning outcomes of the programme(s) under review. A primary focus in enquiry concerning learning resources will be the staff delivering the programme. Visitors will examine support provided for staff and staff development, including the type and volume of staff research, scholarly activity and professional practice that may inform their teaching.

Views on governance and management (including the maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality)

62 In recognition and renewal reviews, and in monitoring reviews where appropriate, the visitors will enquire into the strategic governance and management, including the financial and risk position, of the providing institution. In all reviews, for all types of providing institution, visitors will enquire into governance and management in the area of the maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality in osteopathic education. See Annex M for the table of differences: review elements by review type.

63 The criteria used for all parts of the scrutiny of governance and management in GOsC review are predicated on the premise that all institutions offering osteopathic programmes possess considerable autonomy in academic matters. All institutions seeking initial recognition or renewal of recognition from the GOsC, including those supporting learning for the awards of validating universities or other awarding bodies, must have in place systems and staff appropriate for the successful discharge of their responsibilities.

64 The criteria given below accordingly seek to test the extent to which a provider has developed institutional security and a culture of quality within an appropriately qualified, self-critical and reflective academic and professional community. Institutions already subject to direct separate scrutiny or audit, including scrutiny of finances, by a national HE funding council (for example, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)), by QAA, or by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted)/the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI)/the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) will undergo routinely the scrutiny concerned with strategic governance and management. In these cases, there will normally be no repetition of the scrutiny on strategic governance and management matters, including those of finance. In these cases, visitors will usually refer to published reports and other materials, and the education providers will be invited to supply such materials to the visitors via the Review Coordinator. Consequently, with the exception of the universal scrutiny of maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality directly in osteopathy, new and direct scrutiny activity in the strategic governance and management section (including finances) will normally apply only to providers not already subject to an HE funding council, QAA audit, LSC audit or Ofsted/ALI review. In recognition and renewal review, governance and management scrutiny will always include financial scrutiny of the provider whether conducted directly or indirectly as described immediately above.

65 In recognition and renewal reviews, and in monitoring reviews where financial scrutiny is deemed necessary because of earlier approval of an award with some financial condition or negative financial finding, a person trained in financial analysis will normally act as a lay visitor with particular governance responsibility, or else as a specialist financial adviser to the visitors. Visitors and specialist financial advisers will undertake scrutiny of the institution's management of financial and other major risks including the provider's insurance cover. Documents typically scrutinised will include accounts, strategic plans, asset registers, financial projections, insurance schedules, and board and committee minutes.

66 Where a cause for concern on a financial matter arises during a review, the visitors may at any time request the appointment of a specialist adviser.

67 The criteria used by visitors (see below) will reflect the assumption that many smaller providers could not be expected to have systems that are as well developed or mature as those of a well-established HE institution.

68 The governance and management scrutiny of a provider must establish whether or not a threshold of competence has been crossed, and that there is securely in place an effective strategy for further development and enhancement. The process through which judgements against the criteria are made will be one of comparison with, or benchmarking against, institutions having a status as the providers of HE programmes validated by a university or other HE institution. The provider of osteopathic education must demonstrate that there can be public confidence in the institution's systems for assuring quality and standards. Reviews will seek to identify specific areas of good practice as well as matters where there is scope for improvement.

69 The following sections detail the criteria against which the provider reviewed will be considered. The statements of evidence should be regarded as illustrative of the sorts of evidence that might be found persuasive. They are not intended as an exhaustive listing.

Views on governance and management

Strategic governance and management

Criterion

70 The provider's strategic governance, management, financial control and quality assurance arrangements are sufficient to manage existing operations and respond to development and change.

Indicative evidence

71 The provider should be able to demonstrate that:

  • its clinical, academic and financial planning, quality assurance and resource allocation policies are coherent and relate to its mission, aims and objectives
  • there is a clarity of function and responsibility in relation to its governance and management systems
  • across the full range of its activities, there is demonstrable strength of clinical, academic and professional leadership
  • policies and systems are developed, implemented and communicated in collaboration with staff and students
  • its mission and associated policies and systems are understood, accepted and actively applied by staff and, where appropriate, students
  • it is managing successfully the responsibilities vested in it by its validating university and the GOsC
  • its operational policies and systems are monitored, and it identifies where, when, why and how changes might need to be made
  • there is reliable information to indicate continued confidence and stability over an extended period of time in the organisation's governance, financial control, quality assurance arrangements and organisational structure.

Maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality in osteopathy

Criterion

72 The provider has clear and consistently applied mechanisms for establishing its academic and professional objectives and outcomes.

Indicative evidence

73 The provider should be able to demonstrate that:

  • its programmes of study are offered at levels that correspond to the levels of the appropriate qualifications framework(s)
  • in seeking to establish, and then maintain, comparability of standards with other providers of equivalent level programmes, advice is explicitly sought from clinical and academic peers in other institutions, the GOsC and, where appropriate, relevant employers
  • there is effective articulation between organisational procedures for securing standards and those of any validating HE institution.

Criterion

74 The provider seeks to ensure that its programme of study in osteopathy consistently meets stated objectives and outcomes.

Indicative evidence

75 The provider should be able to demonstrate that:

  • self-assessment is integral to quality assurance and management
  • ideas and expertise from within and outside the organisation on programme design, approval and development, teaching and student learning and assessment are drawn into its arrangements for programme approval and review
  • staff are informed of, provided with guidance on, and implement effectively its policy and procedures for programme design, approval, monitoring and review
  • its strategies for teaching, learning and assessment are effectively disseminated and applied, and reflect its stated professional and academic objectives and learning outcomes
  • there is a close interrelationship between academic and professional planning matters and decisions on resource allocation
  • account is taken of external guidance made available by the GOsC and other professional, statutory, regulatory and advisory bodies such as QAA (including, for example, the Code of practice, and associated guidance on programme specifications and subject benchmark statements).

Criterion

76 Programme performance in osteopathy is carefully and regularly monitored.

Indicative evidence

77 The provider should be able to demonstrate that:

  • responsibility for approving, amending and improving new programme proposals is clearly assigned and subsequent action carefully monitored
  • close linkages are maintained between learning support services and programme approval, planning and review
  • clear mechanisms exist for assigning and discharging action in the scrutiny, monitoring and review of existing programme(s)
  • coherence of programmes with multiple elements (for example, open modular framework(s) and/or alternative pathways) is secured and maintained
  • clear mechanisms are employed when a decision is taken to close a programme or programme element and, in doing so, ensure that the interests of students are safeguarded.

Procedure for a possible recommendation of 'approval denied' or 'approval with conditions'

78 The Review Coordinator is required to notify QAA if there is the possibility of a recommendation of 'approval denied' or 'approval with conditions'. In this case, during the 2005-06 academic year a QAA officer will attend review meetings and/or the final meeting of the visitors to ensure that the published review method is followed. Beyond 2006, and subject to decision by and contract with GOsC to continue this form of review, a QAA officer will always attend the final meeting of the visitors in the case of a possible 'approval denied' recommendation, and may attend in the case of a possible 'approval with conditions' recommendation. The QAA officer will not contribute to the process of arriving at findings and a recommendation.

Liaison between the provider and the visitors: the Institutional Contact

79 Liaison between the visitors and the provider is vital to ensure that the visitors obtain accurate and comprehensive information about the programme(s) under review and also to ensure that the provider is clear about the areas on which visitors require further information. All communications concerning the conduct of the review should normally be through the Institutional Contact and the Review Coordinator.

80 Each providing institution may nominate members of staff (normally no more than two) to take on the role of Institutional Contact, although there is no requirement to do so. The purpose of this role is to provide effective liaison between the team of visitors and the subject staff, and to ensure that the team of visitors obtains accurate and comprehensive information about the educational provision and its institutional context.

81 It is anticipated that during the 2005-06 academic year many institutional contacts will be college heads or a close nominee. The Institutional Contact will have deposit, but not reading, rights in the secure electronic web folder where review visitors read documents and exchange emerging views on the evidence base. The Institutional Contact will receive feedback through the Review Coordinator during the weeks of the review, in particular from the visitors at the end of each day of the visit to the institution, and, where convenient for the Institutional Contact and visitors, at the conclusion of private meetings of the review visitors.

Stage 3: The reporting stage

82 Each review will conclude with oral feedback to the provider, delivered either by the Review Coordinator or by a QAA officer. This feedback will take the form of a general exposition of the visitors' findings. No indication of any recommendation concerning the approval of a programme may be delivered during the oral feedback.

83 No later than one week after the final meeting of the visitors, the review leader (either a QAA officer or the Review Coordinator) will also inform the Education Committee of the GOsC by letter of the findings and recommendations reached.

84 The visitors' report will be edited by the review leader, and further edited by another Review Coordinator (the Editing Contract Reviewer) and/or QAA officer. At the invitation of the GOsC, the report will be presented to the Education Committee with an oral introduction delivered by the Review Coordinator/QAA officer.

85 The review report will include the findings, formal recommendation, and commentary on the provision sections. Review reports will follow the template supplied. The report structure is set out in Annex L.

Commentary by the provider

86 Following any review, the provider reviewed may be invited to supply to the Education Committee of the GOsC a commentary on the draft review report. This commentary will not form part of the report but may be taken into account by the Education Committee and more widely within the GOsC. The provider should submit its commentary to the GOsC clearly titled 'Commentary by the provider' and should clearly distinguish between this commentary, suggestions for the correction of factual inaccuracy and any complaint or appeal.

Report production schedule

87 In the case of renewal reviews, QAA sends a draft report to the GOsC no later than eight months before the expiry of the current RQ status of the provision reviewed. The report production schedule which follows applies to both recognition and renewal reviews of six weeks and to monitoring review of four weeks.

By end of week

Week 0 - Final visitor meeting and oral debrief (end of review)

Week 1 - First draft produced by the Review Coordinator (renewal) or QAA officer (monitoring)

Week 3 - After the incorporation of visitors' comments on draft one, draft two is sent to Editing Contract Reviewer

Week 4 - Editing Contract Reviewer sends editing suggestions to Review Coordinator or QAA officer

Week 5 - Review Coordinator/QAA officer incorporates the Editing Contract Reviewer comments as the new draft three, and QAA's Reports Team sends draft three to GOsC

Week 6 - GOsC's Education Committee sends draft three to the provider for factual accuracy check (possible invitation to offer a commentary)

Week 11 - Provider replies to GOsC on the theme of factual accuracy and, where invited, supplies an institutional commentary. GOsC sends the provider's comments on factual accuracy, and any comments of its own to QAA

Week 12 - Review Coordinator/QAA officer incorporates factual accuracy changes to produce draft 4

Week 13 - Review Coordinator/QAA officer delivers draft four to GOsC

Weeks 14 to 22 - Review Coordinator/QAA officer delivers an oral introduction of the report (draft four) to a meeting of GOsC's Education Committee (usually by end week 17) Reports Team formats draft 4 into publication quality draft five (by end week 20)
Formatted report sent to GOsC (by end week 22)

88 The GOsC policy, as at September 2005, is that the report is not published. GOsC policy on the matter of publication may change.

Complaints and representations

89 QAA is committed to working in an open and accountable way. This includes having clear published procedures for responding to complaints from institutions and for handling appeals against specific decisions. QAA affords course providers a right of complaint about review procedures. QAA distinguishes between complaints and appeals. Appeals are challenges to specific decisions, in specific circumstances. These are handled through the relevant procedure on representations, available on QAA's website. A complaint is regarded as an expression of dissatisfaction with services that it provides or actions that it has taken. The procedures can be viewed on the QAA's website www.qaa.ac.uk/aboutus/policy/intro.asp Complaints about review procedure not involving a challenge to a review decision should be addressed to QAA in the first instance.

90 Separately from any procedural complaint, the GOsC shall receive any provider's request for revision of the review team's findings and recommendations. QAA and the GOsC have collaborated in the drafting of a revised GOsC review representation procedure for addressing such appeals or requests for revision. The GOsC's representation procedure is wider in scope than QAA's

91 In the interests of a clear division of responsibility, appeals against any finding or recommendation of the visitors or against any subsequent decision should be addressed to the GOsC review representation procedure.

92 Providers should note that while QAA manages the review, the GOsC has statutory responsibility for any recommendation and account that it makes to the Privy Council. The GOsC is not bound to endorse to the Privy Council any recommendation contained in a review report produced through a review managed by QAA. Any complaint or appeal concerning communication beyond the review procedure between the GOsC and the Privy Council, or any other body, is not a matter that can be dealt with by the QAA's complaints procedure.

Part two

Reference points for review

Proportionality

93 Review procedures and judgements will reflect the principle of proportionality, ie the visitors will adjust the intensity of scrutiny and the weight of commentary to the importance of the theme in hand.

Review evidence

94 Visitors will triangulate evidence, ie evidence from more than one source will inform consideration of any theme or question. The major point of reference for GOsC review will be the Standard 2000. The Academic Infrastructure and Teaching Quality Information are two other important sources of information and reference points.

Academic Infrastructure

95 In common with other methods of review carried out by QAA, GOsC review uses a set of nationally agreed reference points, known as the Academic Infrastructure, to consider the standards and quality of HE awards. These reference points were developed by QAA in consultation with providers of HE. The purpose of the Academic Infrastructure is to help providers to set standards and obtain guidance on good practice.

96 Visitors will consider with immediate effect the following part of the Academic Infrastructure:

  • the FHEQ and The framework for qualifications of higher education institutions in Scotland, which include descriptions of different HE qualifications.

97 Parts of the Academic Infrastructure to be used increasingly by visitors from September 2005 are:

  • any subject benchmark statement in osteopathy developed after 2004
  • guidelines for preparing programme specifications
  • the Code of practice.

Full details of the Academic Infrastructure are available on QAA's website www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure

The frameworks for higher education qualifications

98 These are designed to make it easier to understand HE qualifications. The frameworks promote a clearer understanding of the achievements and attributes represented by the main titles such as bachelor's degree with honours, master's degree and doctorate. By setting out the attributes and abilities that can be expected of the holder of a qualification, the frameworks help students and employers to understand the meaning and level of qualifications. They also provide public assurance that qualifications bearing similar titles represent similar levels of achievement.

99 There is a qualifications framework for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and one for Scotland, which is part of a wider Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework.

Subject benchmark statements

100 Subject benchmark statements set out expectations about standards of degrees in a range of subject areas. They describe the conceptual framework that gives a discipline its coherence and identity, and define what can be expected of a graduate in terms of the techniques and skills needed to develop understanding in the subject. They also identify the level of intellectual demand and challenge represented by an honours degree in subject areas. They help HE institutions when they design and approve programmes. As at July 2005, there is no subject benchmark statement for osteopathy.

Programme specifications

101 Programme specifications are the sets of information that each institution provides about each of its programmes. Each specification clarifies what knowledge, understanding, skills and other attributes a student will have developed on successfully completing a specific programme. It also provides details of teaching and learning methods, assessment and subsequent career opportunities, and sets out the position of the programme in the qualification framework.

102 Such information allows prospective students to make comparisons and informed choices about the programmes which they may wish to take. It provides useful guidance for recruiters of graduates.

The Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education

103 The Code of practice is a guideline on good practice for institutions for the management of academic standards and quality. The Code of practice has 10 sections:

  • Postgraduate research programmes
  • Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning)
  • Students with disabilities
  • External examining
  • Academic appeals and student complaints on academic matters
  • Assessment of students
  • Programme approval, monitoring and review
  • Career education, information and guidance
  • Placement learning
  • Student recruitment and admissions.

Teaching Quality Information

104 At present, further education (FE) colleges and private colleges are not included in the requirements in HEFCE's document, Information on quality and standards in higher education: Final guidance (HEFCE 03/51). Currently, non-HE institutions do not have to publish information on the Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the United Kingdom (HERO) Teaching Quality Information (TQI) website. If a college has HE provision that receives indirect public funding through an HE institution, it is the HE institution that will be responsible for reporting data to the Higher Education Statistics Agency for inclusion on the TQI site, and for producing the qualitative reports that are submitted directly to the HERO/TQI site www.tqi.ac.uk The information will refer to the college. During the normal course of the review, visitors may make reference to the TQI website.

Next >> Annexe A - F

 

ISBN 1 84482 220 6

© 2005 General Osteopathic Council

© Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2005

TopTop