Skip navigation

Institutional audit: England and Northern Ireland
Mid-cycle follow-up: guidance note for institutions

(based on the Handbook for Institutional audit: England and Northern Ireland 2009) – paragraphs 110-118)

Purpose of the mid-cycle follow up

1 The mid-cycle follow up is an integral part of the overall Institutional audit process and will support the same aims. It will serve as a short health check, for the institution and for QAA, on the institution's continuing management of academic standards and quality of provision, normally some three years after an Institutional audit. It will be an opportunity to reflect upon developments made in the management of standards and quality within the institution since the previous Institutional audit, and, in the context of the findings of that audit, for QAA to note any matters which have the potential to be of particular interest to the team that conducts the institution's next audit.

2 An institution may, if it wishes, use the mid-cycle follow-up to seek an external view of changes made, or proposed, in the management of standards and quality. While it is not appropriate for QAA to act as a 'consultant' in such matters, it will nevertheless be prepared to discuss changes and proposals in general terms in relation to the Academic Infrastructure.

Process

3 The mid-cycle follow up will take the form of a paper-based exercise conducted by two senior QAA officers. It will be based on existing institutional documentation with the intention of making as little demand as possible on institutions. The timing will be agreed with each institution as part of the institutional audit schedule.

4 The contextual material that normally will be accessed directly by QAA for the mid-cycle follow up is:

  • the report of the previous Institutional audit
  • the report of any separate Collaborative provision audit since the Institutional audit
  • the reports of any other QAA reviews of the institution, or its subject areas since the Institutional audit
  • the relevant reports of other external bodies, such as professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs), made available to QAA through the HE Concordat
  • information on the Unistats website, including National Student Survey (NSS) outcomes
  • information on any major strategic change, including that reported by the institution to HEFCE.

5 The institution is asked to comment upon:

  • actions taken to address the recommendations in the Institutional audit report
  • actions taken to address any recommendations in other QAA reports since the audit
  • any major strategic changes since the last audit
  • any significant changes in collaborative arrangements since the audit.

6 The commentary will take the form of a short Briefing Paper, (generally no more than four to six sides of A4), together with (a) links to, or copies of, key papers that explain any action taken in response to advisable and desirable audit recommendations; and (b) copies of internal review reports. The intention is that the submission should use existing documents where possible, and that references to these should be kept to a minimum. For example, the section of the Briefing Paper on actions taken to address audit recommendations might take the form of a targeted selection of papers drawn from the records of key committees, with some brief notes to help the readers follow the sequence.

7 The briefing paper will be accompanied by a cover sheet, which should include the way in which the Students' Union, or other student representation, had been engaged in preparing the institution's Briefing Paper. There is no requirement to provide a separate covering letter.

8 QAA will also ask the institution to provide a sample of internal review reports, together with information relating to how the reports have been followed up by the institution. The use of internal review reports, to provide information on the way in which the management of the student learning opportunities and the academic standards of awards is conducted, is an important part of the process. Institutions are therefore requested to provide QAA with a sample of internal review reports that have been completed since the previous audit and which are representative of the institution. It is suggested that either five reports or 20 per cent of the number of reviews carried out, whichever is the greater, should be sent with the Briefing Paper. 

9 The institution's Briefing Paper, the information listed in paragraph 4 above and the sample internal review reports will be read by two senior QAA officers. They will produce a short report that will comment on:

  • the progress that has been made against the recommendations made in the report of the Institutional audit
  • any matters that have the potential to be of particular interest at the institution's next Institutional audit.

The report template is available on QAA’s website.

10 A draft of QAA's report will be sent to the institution for comment. The final report will be sent to the institution and to HEFCE, but will not be published. The mid-cycle follow up is not a peer-review process conducted by an audit team. The report of the follow up cannot, therefore, result in a recommendation or a decision that the judgements of the previous audit team are modified or revised, but it will be used as part of the evidence base for the next engagement by QAA with the institution. The institution will not be asked to make a formal response to the report, although it may do so if it wishes.

 

TopTop