Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 1

College of Medical and Dental Sciences

Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) Quality Manual

2015/16

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 2

CONTENTS

PAGE 1. Introduction 3 2. BDS Programme Structure 4 3. Quality Management Framework 5 4. University Policy & Quality Framework 5 5. Quality Assurance Committee 6 6. Managing Quality issues/concerns 8 7. Annual Review 11 8. External Examiners 16

External Examiner QA role in Final BDS Examination 17 9. Student Assessment Strategy 17

BDS Programme Assessment Group 18 10. Student Concerns 18

Student Feedback / Representation 19 Student Support & Welfare 21

11. National Student Survey 22 12. Peer Observation 26 13. Patient Feedback 27 14. General Dental Council 27 15. Clinical Placements 28

Clinical Placement Quality Assurance 28 Outreach Teaching Quality Assurance 29

16. Francis Report 29 17. BDS Committees 31

Committee structure 32 Committee Terms of Reference 34

18. College of MDS Quality Office Contacts 38

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 3

INTRODUCTION This document has been produced as a reference for staff and students at the Dental School, with the aim of summarising in one document the quality assurance framework for the BDS programme at Birmingham. It is an overview of the processes we have in place with more detailed information available elsewhere. Quality assurance in the College of Medical & Dental Sciences is kept as far as possible distinct from delivery of education to allow a more independent assurance of education provision. Quality assurance is well supported in the College of Medical & Dental Sciences by the College Quality Office and Associate Director of Education (Quality) who Chairs the College Quality Committee and is a member of the University Quality Assurance Committee. The School of Dentistry has an academic Lead for Quality Assurance who liaises closely with Head of School and Director of Education to ensure quality of educational provision for BDS students. In addition the Quality Assurance Lead represents the school on College Quality Assurance Committee, allowing two-way feedback at a College and School level. The Quality Lead also attends Dental School educational meetings i.e. Education committee, and Curriculum Development Committee, as well as School Committee and School Quality Management Committee. The close involvement of the Quality Assurance lead for Dentistry within key educational meetings at a school and college level help to deliver high quality education to our undergraduate students. BDS is subject to two main quality assurance mechanisms, (i) The university as the awarding body and (ii) The General Dental Council as the regulator of the profession. In addition to these key drivers the course has to reflect and embrace other external changes such as the publication of the recent mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry (Francis Report), and feedback from our students on their educational provision.

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 4

BDS PROGRAMME STRUCTURE

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 5

QUALITY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK As previously indicated the two main mechanisms of quality management are the University of Birmingham and the professional regulatory body (GDC). Careful integration of these drivers is required to ensure a coherent approach to quality management. The key objectives for the university require that we are compliant with the UK Quality code for Higher Education which is achieved by meeting university requirements for quality management which include:

1. Appropriate use of external examiners 2. Monitoring student evaluation of the programme and responding appropriately

to it in a manner which supports effective dissemination of good practice 3. Participation in the annual review process 4. Monitoring and responding to results of the National Student Survey 5. Student Representation via Staff Student Committees 6. Reporting to College and University QA committees 7. Ensuring robust Fitness to Practice mechanisms

The General Dental Council requires compliance with current framework for undergraduate education ‘First Five years’, followed by movement towards the learning outcomes found in ‘Preparing for Practice’ which was published in 2012 and will be fully integrated into the BDS programme by finals 2016. Compliance with these objectives is achieved via:

1. Curriculum development & Learning and Teaching committees 2. Annual Programme and School review 3. School Quality Assurance Committee 4. Representation on College Quality Committee 5. General Dental Council Visitation 5. Compliance with the University of Birmingham Policy and Quality Framework

(see below)

UNIVERSITY POLICY & QUALITY FRAMEWORK The Policy and Quality Framework sets out the University’s internal mechanisms for assuring the quality of its academic provision for all students. This framework, which replaces the Birmingham Integrated Quality Assurance and Enhancement System (BIQAES), is currently under development but will include many of the elements that have formed a solid basis for our quality assurance for many years, along with more recent developments. The Framework is the means by which these processes are articulated. What the Framework includes: As a guide the completed Policy and Quality Framework will include elements such as those noted below

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 6

. Policy University Ordinances, Regulations and Codes of Practice Other guidance and advice documents

Procedures Curriculum approval procedures Collaborative Provision approval procedures Committees External Examiners’ System Student Representation System Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs)

Reviews Vice Chancellor’s Review Annual Programme and Module Review Collaborative Provision Review Thematic review guidance Specific checks: guidance

UNIVERSITY QUALITY COMMITTEE (UQC) The UQC has delegated authority from the Senate for the management of quality assurance in the University. It is supported in this work by the five College level committees with responsibility for quality assurance and enhancement. (See figure 1) Terms of reference To monitor regularly all guidance and requirements issued by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, particularly in relation to Institutional Review and the UK Quality Code for Higher Education, initiating and co-ordinating action as appropriate. To develop and keep under review the University's systems, policies and guidance for assuring and enhancing the quality of students' learning experience and maintaining academic standards. To develop and keep under review processes for annual review of modules and programmes at undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research levels, and for collaborative provision, and to consider and manage the outcome of these processes. To monitor the outcomes from, and the effectiveness of, the External Examiner system for taught programmes. To consider the outcomes of Specific Checks and Thematic Reviews initiated by the Committee or by Colleges. To receive reports from the Education Committee on quality and standards issues emerging from Vice-Chancellor's Reviews. To monitor a range of relevant risk and performance indicators, including risk indicators monitored by the QAA, such as: Statistical data on the performance of programmes; Student feedback and survey results; Annual reports regarding complaints, appeals, misconduct, fitness to practise

and cases submitted to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 7

To have oversight of the University's approach to assuring the completeness, accuracy and reliability of information provided for applicants and students. To consider reports from the Graduate School Management Board on quality assurance or academic standards matters relating to postgraduate research students, including in particular the outcomes of PGR annual review. To consider reports from the Collaborative Provision Committee regarding the outcomes of annual and periodic reviews of collaborative provision, and any other matters relating to the quality assurance or academic standards of collaborative provision. To consider proposals and reports from College committees with oversight of quality assurance matters. Membership Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education), in the Chair Deputy Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education) College Directors of Quality Assurance or nominee of the College Director of

Education Director of the Graduate School Vice-President (Education and Access) of the Guild of Students

Reporting relationship Reports to Senate. Receives reports from the Collaborative Provision Committee on collaborative provision review arrangements and the Graduate School Management Board.

Figure 1

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 8

MANAGING QUALITY ISSUES/CONCERNS The BDS programme at Birmingham has a comprehensive framework in place that ensures the quality of education we deliver. Our course is aligned with the current GDC learning outcomes (interim’ First Five Years’) and is constantly being developed and enhanced to ensure compliance with new legislation which includes the new GDC learning outcomes (‘Preparing for practice’). The framework we have in place allows rapid response to change and ensures the course we provide is relevant, up-to-date and aligns with external regulatory bodies. We have a comprehensive committee structure (Figure 2) that facilitates ongoing development of the BDS programme. Input internally (staff & students), externally (external examiners), and from external review of our programme (University & GDC) form key components of these meetings.

Figure 2

We value the feedback provided by our students, external examiners and reviewers and have robust mechanisms in place to ensure we capture this feedback (e.g. module evaluation questionnaires, external examiner reports, external reviewer reports etc.) and use it to help drive enhancement of our educational provision. The BDS course at Birmingham responds quickly to address any concerns raised from student/staff feedback, external examiners, or internal/external programme review. This is achieved as a result of the ability to table and discuss any issues raised at

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 9

regular school education meetings (Figure 2). Following discussion appropriate actions can be taken to address concerns identified. If concerns are raised that require a more rapid response this can be achieved via discussion at Executive Core group – a small meeting of more senior academic staff chaired by the Head of School. This mechanism allows rapid and flexible response to issues raised via the quality management framework If serious threats were identified these would be discussed within the School of Dentistry, with the College of Medical & Dental Sciences and the University and an appropriate action plan developed, in addition we would inform the General Dental Council of the situation, and what action is required to address the issue raised. Students and staff are aware of their obligations in regard to whistleblowing, students receive education to explain their responsibility in this regard and have the opportunity to raise any concerns via Staff Student Committee or with their Personal Tutor (In addition to ad hoc discussions with staff or via year or senior tutor) A flow diagram has been developed to ensure students understand how to raise any concerns (Figure 3). The School of Dentistry has produced a response to the ‘Francis Report’ (enquiry into the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust- published on 6th February 2013). This has been circulated to all staff and students as well as being widely discussed at curriculum development committee, Education committee, Staff Student Committee and School Committee. The implications of this report have been additionally been discussed with students during their undergraduate studies (lectures & tutorials) This report has also been discussed at college level with a response produced by the College of Medical & Dental Sciences Quality Committee.

Figure 3

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 10

The School of Dentistry has developed a Concerns/Fitness to Practise Policy for BDS that aligns with the MBChB programme in the College of Medical & Dental Sciences and University. It provides a clear route to allow management of a range of concerns including academic/clinical performance, conduct/professional behaviour, and health/disability (Figure 4)

Figure 4

ANNUAL REVIEW The University’s Annual Review of programmes (which includes BDS) is an essential component in ensuring the quality of educational provision. It ensures all elements of the BDS programme are reviewed to identify any areas of concern which require change to our undergraduate curriculum, or areas of good practice that can be disseminated at both a school and college level. The University requires all programmes to submit an annual review, this is an essential component of Quality Assurance, allowing reflection on the appropriateness of educational provision and thereby ensuring ongoing educational enhancement. University guidelines on Annual Review are frequently updated and these can be found on the University Intranet https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/as/registry/policy/quality/annualreview/undergraduatepostgraduate-taught-annual-review.aspx

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 11

In summary for all module / specialty areas submit an annual review to the Director of Education all these are reviewed and collated before discussion at a curriculum development committee meeting at the start of the academic year. An overarching response it produced for the BDS programme which is tabled and discussed at the ‘School Quality meeting’ and signed off by the Head of School, Director of Education & Quality Assurance Lead. It is then tabled for discussion at the College QA Committee before onward consideration at the University Quality Assurance Committee. An example of the Annual Review form for specialty teaching areas/modules and School review form can be seen below:

Annual Module / Specialty Teaching Review

Module (Banner) Code: Module Title: Name of Module Leader/Convenor: 1. Report on action taken as a result of previous module review: Please comment on any action taken, evaluate its effects, and indicate if further action is required.

2. Student numbers: How many students were registered on the module? (Please indicate if numbers have changed significantly since the previous year/s.) 3. Analysis of module performance: Please comment on the performance of students on the module, in comparison with previous year/s and in comparison with the performance of other modules at the same level. (Refer to statistical data on module completion rates and the range of marks achieved.) 4. Feedback and Evaluation: (a) Please provide a brief summary of any views expressed or issues raised during the review period: e.g. by students, External Examiners, and any other key stakeholders (b) Please provide details of any other mechanisms by which the module has been reviewed or monitored.

5. Educational Enhancement a) Please summarise your overall reflections on the module’s performance and any planned changes or enhancements to the module1 b) Please identify any examples of good, or innovative, practice which could be disseminated more widely.

Please list all actions that have been identified as a result of this annual module review, as well as any ongoing actions.

Proposed Action

Deadline(s) Person/Committee Responsible

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 12

I confirm that this annual module review has been conducted in accordance with guidance notes on annual review. Name of module leader: Date:

Annual School Programme Review

College / School: 1. Report on action taken as a result of previous annual programme review:

[N.B. Last year’s action list will be inserted here in the data populated form] Please comment on any action taken, evaluate its effects, and indicate if further action is required.

2. Admissions: Using the statistical data provided by the Planning Office, please comment upon admissions to the School’s programmes, with reference to student intake numbers, qualifications on entry, and diversity of entrants, drawing comparisons with the previous years’ data. Please also evaluate the continuing viability of the programme(s). University and College Averages are based on entrants under 21. This restriction is not applied to Schools or Clusters. The Number of entrants with Tariff (top table) differs to the Intakes used for Student Number Planning and Fees Forecasts (bottom table).

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Total number of entrants

Average tariff point score of intake

College average University average Total intake

3. Analysis of Performance: Using the statistical data provided by the Planning Office, please comment on the relative performance of the programmes within the School, and the performance of groups of students, with reference to ethnicity, gender, disability, entry domicile and entry age. Please draw comparisons with the previous years’ data. First year non-continuation

Entry cohort: 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13*

% did not continue to yr 2

Discontinued to yr 2 % did not continue to yr 2 – University average

% did not continue to yr 2 - College average

* Data available from mid-October

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 13

Second year non-continuation

Entry cohort: 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

% did not continue to yr 3

Discontinued to yr 3 % did not continue to yr 3 – University average

% did not continue to yr 3 - College average

* Data available from mid-October Non-completion rates

Cohort entry year: 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

University Discontinued Rate (Actual)

Discontinuing Instance University Discontinued Rate (Actual) - University

University Discontinued Rate (Actual) - College

Degree classifications

Graduation year: 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

% good honours No. of Good Honours students

College % good honours

University % good honours

RG % good honours Employability (UK full-time)

Graduation year: 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

Graduate Employability No. in graduate work or study

Graduate Employability - College

Graduate Employability - University

Employability No. in emp, further study, both

Employability - College Employability - University

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 14

4. Feedback and evaluation: (a) Please provide a brief summary of views expressed on programmes within the School during the review period: e.g. by students, External Examiners, PSRBs and any other key stakeholders (b) Please provide details of any other mechanisms by which programmes within the School have been reviewed or monitored (c) Please summarise any changes which have been made or planned as a result.

5. Resources: Please identify any resource, space, timetabling or staffing issues that have impacted positively or negatively upon teaching and learning, noting the action that has been / will be taken in response.

6. Educational Enhancement: a) Please identify any good practice that might be appropriate for College-wide or institution-wide dissemination. b) What are the mechanisms in place to identify and disseminate good practice in learning and teaching within the School?

7. Annual Review Meeting Please provide the date and a list of attendees at the meeting held to discuss the annual review outcomes and finalise this report. This meeting will ideally include at least one student representative.

I confirm that the Annual Programme Review has been conducted in accordance with the guidance notes on annual review and an action plan has been completed.

School Head of Quality Assurance (or equivalent) name:

Head of School Name:

Date:

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 15

EXTERNAL EXAMINERS External examiners (taught provision) are appointed to provide the University with impartial and independent advice and informed comment on the institution's academic standards and student achievement in relation to those standards, through oversight of the assessment process at the module and programme/award level. All University programmes of study, and modules therein, leading to an award of credit at foundation, undergraduate or postgraduate taught level must have one or more external examiners appointed. Central to the University’s External Examiner System (Taught Programmes) is the Code of Practice. All external examiners appointed by the University are required to adhere to the Code of Practice and within the University it is the responsibility of the Head of School or their nominee to ensure the information in this Code of Practice is adhered to and communicated to the nominated Examinations Officer and all academic staff designated as internal examiners. Guidance The guidance below supports the Code of Practice and staff working with external examiners should ensure they are aware of the information in each. Guidance for External Examiners is sent to external examiners when they are

first appointed and is also available on the University’s web page www.birmingham.ac.uk/external.

External examiner guidance for University staff contains information about the nomination of external examiners, procedures for extending an external examiner’s appointment and the annual reporting process. The relevant forms are listed below.

A guide for students on the role of external examiners. We recommend that this is included if University staff are giving out any information to students which refers to external examiners (i.e. programme information).

School responses to external examiner reports provides guidance about responding to reports and some examples of letters. All the documents are available at www.birmingham.ac.uk/external

Eligibility to Work The University classes UG external examiners as casual staff and as such, there is a requirement to confirm eligibility to work. Checks of passports (and colour copy made) are compulsory for all external examiners and must be undertaken before the appointment commences. More information is available from the Quality Office.

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 16

EXTERNAL EXAMINERS ROLE IN FINAL BDS EXAMINATION Following feedback from the General Dental Council visitation in 2014, the role of external examiners will change for finals 2015. External examiners will now rather than examining in the seen / unseen cases will have a Quality Assurance role observing this examination and ensuring a consistency across examiner groups.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT STRATEGY The School of Dentistry’s assessment strategy recognises that we have a duty to ensure our students are safe to progress to the next phase of their learning and that assessment has a key role to play in driving student learning. All heads of specialties take personal responsibility for ensuring that students have met the learning outcomes appropriate to that stage of the course. Student progress is monitored termly at our progress meetings which include representation from all clinical specialities, thereby allowing triangulation of performance. Five months before the Final examination, all students are written to and advised on any outstanding clinical course requirements they need to meet before being entered into Finals. External examiners are fully involved in our assessment procedures and are invited to provide feedback on questions prior to the examination. External examiners still play an active role in our Finals examination. All course modules have learning outcomes which embrace those within The First Five Years & its replacement ‘Preparing for Practice’, students are advised of descriptors that may be used as part of their assessment and we also encourage reflection in student assessment. For example, in the skills laboratory, students are required to assess their own work as part of the gateway practical tests before being allowed to progress to treating patients. We also have a series of self-assessments on our ecourse which students can use to help check their understanding. Feedback on clinics is given high priority and this is designed to encourage student reflection on their performance. All work on clinic is graded as part of our assessment and feedback processes. Our methods of assessment evolve continually as we reflect on our practice. A recent innovation is that all module and specialty leads provide generic feedback to the student cohort on performance in professional examinations; previously we only used to do this for students who had failed. Reviewing the results of our assessments allows us to identify areas that may not have been understood and also enables us to provide additional support for students when required. We are committed to using a broad range of assessments throughout the course in both theoretical and practical arenas. Our most recent development is an iPad based Clinical Assessment and Feedback System (CAFS), which will bring together all Specialty Areas into one

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 17

database. This will include students’ self-reflection, staff and patient feedback and ensures that students have access to all comments made about them by their teachers. The methods of assessment are outlined in student module/specialty handbooks

THE ASSESSMENT GROUP One of the recommendations coming out of the GDC’s inspection of the BDS programme in 2014 was the need for the school to have an assessment group and lead to oversee the coverage, content and processes of assessment for undergraduates across the course; and to establish standard setting in examinations. To that end, an assessment lead has been appointed to be supported by a group of staff comprising the five heads of year, key module leads and teachers. Its primary tasks will be to introduce standard setting across the programme starting with the Final examinations. Later it will provide direction and guidance for the ongoing development of assessment, examiner training and the creation and maintenance of a course blueprint. Its role will also broaden to encompass all of the taught programmes within the School of Dentistry.

STUDENT CONCERNS In addition to the whistleblowing policy discussed earlier which is to raise concerns regarding patient safety (see Figure 3) the University of Birmingham has a comprehensive complaints procedure which is outlined below: Student complaints and appeals The University of Birmingham is committed to providing a high quality educational experience, fully supported by a range of academic and administrative services and facilities. However, we understand that from time to time, things do go wrong. This page helps you decide which process to follow to address your concerns. Appeals The appeals process allows you to appeal against a progress decision that has a negative effect upon you or your future career. This process is right for you if:

you feel that a progress decision you received at the end of a module or course of study isn't right, because something went wrong with the University’s procedures or because you had difficulties that the University didn’t know about (and you have good reason for not having submitted extenuating circumstances or used the Fit to Sit procedure).

you are a postgraduate research student, and you feel that there has been bias in the assessment of your thesis on the part of one or more of the examiners.

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 18

You are only able to appeal against a progress decision (e.g. fail module or course, grant alternative qualification); you are unable to appeal against marks.

Complaints: The complaints process covers situations in which you are unsatisfied with your experience at the University or with the services it provides. This process is right for you if:

you have a concern or complaint about programmes, modules, services or facilities provided by the University

you have a complaint about action, or lack of action, by the University or its staff The complaints process covers both informal and more formal stages of complaint. Grievance to Council: Under specific circumstances, if you exhausted all other routes but your issue remains unresolved, you may have the opportunity to raise a Grievance to Council. You will always need to have tried all other possibilities before you can raise a Grievance.

Completion of procedures: Under the Higher Education Act 2004 the University subscribes to the independent scheme for the review of student's complaints. If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of your appeal or complaint, and you have completed all of the University's internal procedures, you may be able to apply to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) for a review of your complaint, providing that the complaint is eligible under its rules.

STUDENT FEEDBACK / REPRESENTATION Our students receive extensive feedback on their academic and clinical performance, ranging from one to one feedback from their teachers following a clinical procedure to feedback on examination performance. Students receive termly reports from specialty teaching areas and have chance to discuss these reports with their clinical teaching staff and personal tutors. Students are represented at the majority of committees within the school including staff student committee where they are able to raise any concerns they may have. This meeting takes place at least every term and an action plan is produced following each meeting. Students are also represented on the majority of school committees as we value there insight and input into the BDS programme (Figure 5). Feedback (via questionnaire) is also gathered at the end of each module / specialty teaching course and this forms part of the annual specialty module review which is submitted to the Director of Education. The feedback is used to constantly modify and improve our undergraduate programme in an attempt to provide the best educational environment for our undergraduates.

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 19

Figure 5 Student Representation: The aim of the Student Representation System (SRS) is to ensure that every student at Birmingham is effectively represented to the University and the Guild by a fellow student. What is the Student Representation System? Student Representation System Advisory Board (SRSAB) Information for Staff Liaison Contacts Effective practice resource Find out more

The Student Representation System (SRS) is a partnership between the University of Birmingham and the Guild of Students. The aim of the SRS is to ensure that every student at Birmingham is effectively represented to the University and the Guild by a fellow student. It is founded on the belief that through effective representation students become partners in their education, allowing a more active involvement in, and ownership of their learning. Student representation at Birmingham is coordinated by a joint University-Guild committee, which is co-chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education) and the Guild Vice-President (Education). This is known as SRSAB.

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 20

STUDENT SUPPORT / WELFARE AND THE PERSONAL TUTOR SCHEME The University recognises the importance, as part of the educational process, to monitor students’ progress and ensure that they receive appropriate and timely feedback. Through its Codes of Practice the University aims to provide a systematic framework to enable members of staff to ensure that this is achieved. STUDENT SUPPORT AND WELFARE The Senior Welfare Tutor, Professor Deborah White, is responsible for planning and co-ordinating student support, guidance and welfare within the School of Dentistry. A personal tutor system operates throughout the School to ensure students’ academic progress is reviewed. Alongside this, the Welfare Tutors provide support for students regarding welfare and other issues impacting on academic progress. The extenuating circumstances officer, Mrs Lynne Reynolds, receives, records and receipts all extenuating circumstances forms, ensures students are aware of their rights and entitlements with regard to appeals and co-ordinates extenuating circumstances panels prior to examination boards. Programme specific arrangements for student welfare matters are shown in the appendix to this document. PERSONAL TUTOR SCHEME The School of Dentistry has identified teams of staff who will act as tutors to a cohort from the beginning of the first year through to graduation. The Senior Welfare Tutor will meet in the first instance with each team of BDS tutors to outline roles and responsibilities. The Programme Directors for H&T and Biomaterials will do the same with personal tutors for their programmes. Each student will be scheduled for a personal tutor meeting once a term of approximately 15 minutes duration. During this meeting the tutor will discuss and give advice and guidance on academic issues, as well as picking up on any factors which are impeding academic progress. The meetings will be organised by the support staff and will take place in mid-October, early February and May/June. First year students will have an extended meeting (Transition Review) in the first five weeks of the spring term in accordance with the University Code of Practice. This is a 20-30 minute appointment where pre-completed paperwork will be discussed and an action plan for the student devised. Where necessary, further appointments will be arranged between tutors and students. Tutors will keep records of students’ attendance at personal tutorial meetings and students are expected to bring their progress file with them to the meetings (from year 3 onwards). The School will endeavour to ensure that these personal tutor meetings coincide with relevant continuous assessment and professional examination boards, in order that pertinent information can be exchanged. Students should consult their Tutor for all issues surrounding their academic progress. However, it is recognised that on occasion, students may experience

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 21

difficulties in their relationship with their tutor. In this case, students may transfer to another tutor within the team following discussion with Professor White. NATIONAL STUDENT SURVEY (NSS) & BIRMINGHAM STUDENT SURVEY BSS The Birmingham Student Survey (BSS) is an annual survey of all non-final year undergraduate students at the University of Birmingham. The survey gives students the chance to tell us about their academic experience as a student at the University of Birmingham. The National Student Survey (NSS) runs annually and is open to all final year students. Each year the School of Dentistry receives the results of the NSS and QA lead drafts a response to the survey which is tabled and discussed at a College of Medical & Dental Sciences QA meeting. In addition the Director of Education responds to this survey and an action plan is produced.

Below is our response to the 2014 survey:

Review of National Student Survey Results 2014 by QA&E Lead in Dentistry: Overall the results of the national student survey for dentistry have shown a small reduction

in the overall level of student satisfaction of 90% compared to 93% in 2013.

(Figure A summarises the changes in NSS response 2010-14)

Looking at the break down, improvement in levels of satisfaction compared to 2013 was

seen in:

The teaching on my course 98% (2013 = 95%)

A more in depth look at individual questions related to this revealed areas showing

improvement were:

Staff are good at explaining things 100% (2013 = 97%)

Staff have made the subject interesting 94% (2013 = 93%)

Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching 100% (2013 = 95%)

The course is intellectually stimulating 100% (2013 = 97%)

Feedback from students 86% (2013 = 83%)

Individual questions related to this revealed areas showing improvement were:

I have had adequate opportunities to provide feedback on all elements of my

course 97% (2013 = 93%)

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 22

My feedback on the course is listened to and valued 86% (2013 = 77%)

Welfare resources and facilities 93% (2013 = 92%)

Questions related to this revealed the area showing improvement were:

There is sufficient provision of welfare and student services to meet my needs

97% (2013 = 93%)

Areas of reduced levels of satisfaction in comparison to 2013 were seen in:

Assessment and Feedback 74% (2013 = 78%)

Academic Support 91% (2013= 93%)

Organisation & Management 79% (2013 = 82%)

Learning resource 85% (2013 = 87%)

Personal Development 91% (2013 = 98%)

Careers 89% (2013 = 90%)

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 23

Free text student comments:

Positive:

The feedback received on the quality of teaching was extremely positive and this is

represented in the increase in student satisfaction with ‘Teaching on my course’. Students

commented on ‘easy to contact staff’ (2 comments), ‘staff go out of their way to help students

achieve’,’ well taught course’, ‘valuable outreach teaching’, ‘supportive staff’ & ‘final year

clinicians some of the best in the country’.

Figure A: Changes in levels of satisfaction Dentistry 2010-2014

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 24

Students were supportive of the feedback they receive and the first class levels of pastoral

support provided. They went on to say that the course was mentally stimulating and enjoyable

and offered good support for job application on graduation.

Students also indicated how useful the eCourse had been with their studies (3 comments)

Negative:

Students raised some concerns which related to:-

Problems with teaching at Medical School, lecturers not attending, not made aware

of module content until 2 weeks prior to examination, student concerns met with

suspicion, disappointed with teaching (with exception of pathology & pharmacology),

felt unable to question or understand why things were done (3 comments)

Inconsistency of grading / marking (2 comments)

That the clinical component should start earlier ( 2 comments)

Too many examinations (2 comments)

Problems with broken computers & printers (2 comments)

Concerns about the way a few teaching staff communicated with students which

could result in ‘destructive criticism’ and effected the learning experience (1

comment), some staff are biased (1 comment) and not encouraging (1 comment)

Organisational issues with the course including timetable clashes (1 comment), year

1&2 poorly organised (1 comment)

Intense course – needs more study time especially around exams (1 comment)

Points system for clinics increases pressure on students and detracts from focus on

treatment (1 comment)

Holidays too short to allow recuperation & dental school should have more

autonomy as modularisation has resulted in more exams (1 comment)

Need more staff support to address student concerns (1 comment)

Comments:

This has been a particularly busy year for the School of Dentistry with two visitations from

the General Dental Council (GDC) impacting heavily on staff within our school in the run up

to finals. In comparison to previous years the student cohort has been slow in achieving

requirements in some clinical areas adding to levels of student stress in terms of meeting

sufficient requirements for graduation, this has also been a concern to staff especially in

view of the GDC visitation and the need to ensure our course is ‘sufficient’ to be recognised

by the GDC to graduate dentists. This situation has no doubt impacted on the overall student

satisfaction with our course.

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 25

However it was pleasing to see the increased level of satisfaction with our teaching and the

comments supporting the quality of staff and the education they receive at Birmingham.

New initiatives such as the ‘Computer Assessment and Feedback System’ (CAFS) a tablet

based assessment and feedback system is being introduced to all clinics and has been well

received by students and aims to address student assessment / feedback concerns. Next

year we are moving to a new purpose built Dental School, although the transition period may

cause some disruption (which we are working hard to minimise) it will result in an improved

learning environment for our students.

As always the results of this NSS will be discussed within our school and an action plan

formulated to address issues raised to help enhance the quality of education we provide.

PEER OBSERVATION What is Peer Observation of Teaching? Peer observation is an element of peer review. It encompasses a structured process of discussion, observation and reflection on teaching delivery. The aim of peer observation is to enable the sharing of good practice and to improve the learning experience of students. The University of Birmingham requires that all staff should be involved in peer observation, both as observers and observes, at least once every two years. The arrangements for the school of Dentistry Peer Observation Cycle Historically a small group of academics have peer observed all the staff at the School of Dentistry. However, we are making changes to this process for academic year 2013-14, to include all members of staff in the peer observation process. The process should be collaborative and reciprocal, whereby one peer observes another's teaching and provides supportive and constructive feedback. Its underlying rationale is to encourage (continued) professional development in teaching and learning through critical reflection, by both observer and 'observee'. Full time Staff should:

1. Identify an appropriate member of staff to peer observe them and inform Dr Kirsty Hill;

2. Arrange the peer observation (date, time, type of observation [clinical session, lecture or SGT]) and inform Dr K Hill;

3. Meet briefly with their observer before the teaching session to discuss the learning outcomes and teaching planned;

4. 5. Ensure that the observation is carried out and feedback takes place after

the session. 6. Return the peer observation reporting form, signed with comments for

dissemination to Kirsty Hill (room 274, second floor)

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 26

Part-time Staff (GDP & Clinical Practice) should: 1. Identify an appropriate member of staff to peer observe them and inform

Dr Kirsty Hill; 2. Arrange the peer observation (date, time, type of observation [Peer

observation can be carried out during clinical session, tutorials or lectures] and inform Dr K Hill;

3. Meet briefly with their observer before the teaching session to discuss the learning outcomes and teaching planned;

4. Ensure that the observation is carried out and feedback takes place after the session.

5. On completion, return the peer observation reporting form signed with comments for dissemination to Kirsty Hill (office 2nd floor room 274) If clinical part time staff have trouble identifying an appropriate person please contact Kirsty Hill (0121 466 5488) or Dominic Stewardson (GDP) or David Attrill (Clinical Practice) and we will arrange your peer observation.

PATIENT FEEDBACK We have recently introduced patient feedback following discussion with colleagues at other UK Dental Schools. Patient feedback is collected anonymously from patients using Clinical Assessment Feedback System (CAFS) an iPad based student feedback system. How such feedback will be used to aid student development is currently being discussed within the school.

GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL A number of programmes of study delivered by the University of Birmingham are subject to various forms of accreditation, validation and inspection by professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs), such as the General Medical Council (GMC) and the General Dental Council (GDC).

The following is an extract from the GDC publication ‘HOW WE CHECK THE

QUALITY OF DENTAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING; A GUIDE FOR COURSE PROVIDERS AND AWARDING BODIES’

OVERVIEW The GDC has a legal responsibility under the Dentists Act 1984 to check the quality of all dental and dental care professional (DCP) education and training courses which lead to registration. The aim of the GDC quality assurance (QA) process is to check whether courses meet the GDC Learning Outcomes for the relevant registrant categories. The QA process involves: • reviewing proposals for new courses and qualifications from course providers and awarding bodies; • inspecting the course providers and awarding bodies; and • monitoring course providers and awarding bodies every year.

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 27

LEARNING OUTCOMES We have just published our new set of Learning Outcomes in the document ‘Preparing for Practice’, which is available on our website. Education and training providers or awarding bodies wishing to commence a new course leading to GDC registration should base their proposals on the relevant set of Learning Outcomes from this document. Currently accepted programmes are based on our previous Learning Outcomes and guidance contained within ‘The First Five Years’ and ‘Developing the Dental Team’. Providers and awarding bodies should continue to deliver accepted programmes against the Learning Outcomes set out within these documents. In future they will need to align their courses to the new set of Learning Outcomes in ‘Preparing for Practice’. We are in the process of consulting with providers and awarding bodies to establish time-scales for this transition. FUTURE QA STANDARDS We are currently developing a set of standards which we will use as a framework to quality assure training providers and we anticipate that this will be finalised and published by autumn 2012. Education and training providers and awarding bodies will be consulted in the development of these standards. It is anticipated that the new standards will lead to changes in how we approach each stage of our quality assurance process and these will be fully explained.

CLINICAL PLACEMENTS

The College of Medical and Dental Sciences is required to liaise with its partners and service providers in order to monitor the standards of the learning experience provided to our students. In order to meet this requirement and based upon previous informal visits, it was agreed that during the 2013/14 academic session, visits would take place to all BDS Outreach clinics that students are placed with. The visits are lead by Prof Deborah White, Director of Education and supported by the College of MDS Quality Officer. In 2015 onwards visitation lead will change to Dr Mike Milward, School of Dentistry QA lead. Clinical placements take place both within the School of Dentistry (NHS Trust clinics – throughout the clinical course) and in outreach teaching placements for adult & paediatric primary dental care (community clinics – summer term 4th year until Easter final year).

CLINICAL PLACEMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE

Quality assurance of clinical placements within the Dental Hospital is achieved by (a) Feedback from staff, patients and students, (b) Regular internal monitoring via infection control audits (monthly) and ‘road shows’ (3 monthly) and (c) Externally monitoring by Quality Care Commission. All these are collated by Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Trust and fed back to clinical areas via regular clinical governance meetings. Any issues raised by this multi-source feedback are discussed with our Trust colleagues and appropriate action taken to ensure a suitable environment for patient treatment and educational provision.

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 28

QUALITY ASSURANCE OF OUTREACH TEACHING Annual visits from the Director of Education and School QA lead to outreach teaching placements take the form of a short series of pre-arranged meetings with key stakeholders including the clinical teacher, dental nurse(s), receptionists and students based at the clinic. The visit is informed by a brief pro-forma completed by the clinic which provides an opportunity to share any concerns, good practice or add anything specific to the agenda for the visit. This process is intended to be two-way and is viewed as a positive way to support colleagues in Outreach Clinics and strengthen lines of communication. The visitors also take the opportunity to observe a teaching session to help ensure consistency in teaching delivery between different outreach teaching placements. To further strengthen teaching consistency outreach teaching staff are requested to attend regular bespoke staff development days where aspects of education and assessment are discussed. In addition outreach teaching staff will attend relevant clinics at the Dental Hospital to observe student teaching. A lead member of outreach teaching staff has been appointed to oversee educational provision in outreach teaching clinics. These mechanisms aim to standardise educational delivery and assessment between the Dental School and outreach placements. Following the visits, a short report is produced and agreed by the Chair and by the clinic and feedback is given to outreach teachers. Any urgent matters arising from the visit are dealt with immediately. Following the completed round of visits a summary report is discussed at a meeting between the College Quality Manager, Director of Education and School Administration Manager. This report is then presented to the relevant committees and forms part of the quality management portfolio of the programme.

FRANCIS REPORT

In June 2010 the Secretary of State for Health announced an enquiry into the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust; this was chaired by Robert Francis QC and looked to learn lessons from issues identified at Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust between January 2005 and March 2009. The final report was published on 6th February 2013.

The summary findings of the Francis Report were initially discussed at the February

(2013) meeting of the College Quality Assurance Committee. Key principals that would

impact on education delivery in the respective clinical programmes were identified and

a summary college level response was prepared by the chair of the QA committee

(Prof John Skelton). The key findings impacting on education delivery were:

The importance of a fundamental cultural shift in the NHS: The Francis Report

asks the NHS Trust Boards to change the culture at all levels. Three characteristics of

openness, transparency and candour, are required to achieve this. Therefore it will be

necessary to ensure that our graduates understand this cultural shift and embrace the

values contained within it as they move from student to practitioner.

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 29

The importance of resilience: Equally, our graduates will need to develop resilience

to deal with negative role models, values and a resistance to what Francis terms “the

ingrained culture of tolerance of poor standards”

The role of the student as an ambassador for patient safety and quality of care:

Francis refers to students and trainees as “invaluable as the eyes and ears in a

hospital setting”. The report recommends that “providers actively seek feedback from

students and tutors on compliance by placement providers with minimum standards

of patient safety and quality of care.” Students also need to be fully supported in using

whistle blowing policies.

The focus on caring for the patient: Nursing is explicitly referred to within this section

of the report however; this applies equally to all professions. The Francis Report asks

for a focus on compassionate caring throughout the educational experience, from pre-

admission to graduation.

Focus on multidisciplinary care: The report implies that effective care of patients is

provided by a functioning effective multidisciplinary team, including links with GPs and

community care. Within education, we will need to continue to consider how inter-

professional learning is embedded and the skills needed for graduates to work in such

teams are developed.

The need to ensure high quality placements for education: The Francis Report

notes that challenges to placements for education and training have remained largely

theoretical. There will be an expectation at all levels of education and training to ensure

that placements are robustly monitored and decisive action taken. Francis says that

“Students and trainees should not be placed in establishments which do not comply

with the fundamental standards, and those charged with overseeing and regulating

these activities should... make protection of patients their priority”.

In addition the General Dental Council have identified a number of areas that impacted

on Dentistry. The following two areas have particular relevance to educational delivery:

Theme 3 Ensuring that the regulation and oversight of Education and Training protects

patients

Action 3.1 The GDC will look at the feasibility of collecting information relating to deficiencies in patient care from students operating in a range of practice settings. It will also consider how this information can be shared. This will form part of the GDC’s work to develop a risk based approach to inspections of training providers. Action 3.3 The GDC will work with the providers of dental education and training to

review the approach to Fitness to Practise for Students to ensure that this is effective

in protecting the public.

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 30

Actions (School of Dentistry)

Following discussion of the key principals with relevance to Dental education we feel

that these are covered to a greater or lesser extent during the BDS programme.

However recent discussions at college / school level and recent GDC publications

have helped to refocus the importance of these issues in the dental undergraduate

curriculum.

There have been a number of changes to the undergraduate curriculum in recent

years to address the issues raised in the Francis report:

1. The BDS curriculum includes courses on ‘Learning and Professionalism in

Dentistry’, ‘Healthcare Ethics & Law’ and ‘Behavioural Sciences’ that cover key

skills highlighted as important in this report, including putting the patient first,

openness, whistleblowing, dealing with negative role models.

2. A BDS whistleblowing policy is being developed to give students an easy path

to raise any concerns they have regarding patient treatment, this will include

(as requested by the student body) a web based resource and simple flow

diagram (Figure 3) to simplify the procedure. This policy will run alongside the

NHS Trust policy which is in place at the Dental Hospital & community outreach

clinics. The issue of whistleblowing is discussed in lectures and tutorials to

ensure students are aware of their responsibilities in this regard.

3. BDS / College of MDS has a robust Fitness to Practice Policy which identifies

any issues with students in terms of patient management / safety. (Figure 4)

4. The BDS programme closely maps to the educational delivery guidelines

published by our regulatory authority the General Dental Council (‘The First

Five Years’ and the new documentation ‘Preparing for Practice’)

5. Annual Quality Assurance Visits to outreach teaching placements have been

introduced (piloted in 2012 and formalised in 2013). These visits aim to

determine the quality of educational provision and identify any issues with

patient safety. When issues of patient safety are raised, they are dealt with

immediately. In addition clinical placements have regular Care Quality

Commission visitation to monitor delivery of patient care.

6. The School of Dentistry gathers detailed feedback on students’ clinical

performance during their course that allows issues to be quickly identified and

appropriate action taken. This may result in additional training to improve

clinical performance, or involvement of the fitness to practice route (Figure 4)

dependent on the severity of the issue. A system of patient feedback will be

introduced during 2014.

BDS COMMITTEES The BDS programme consists of a number of key committees (Figure 6) with the interaction and reporting lines between these allowing rapid and comprehensive

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 31

dissemination of information and allowing development of the curriculum. Each committee has a specific role and these can be seen in the table below:

Figure 6

COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

In order to ensure consistency in committee structure, recording of meeting minutes

and action points as a result of meetings and generic pro forma has been

implemented (see Figure 7) along with a number of standard operating procedures

(see below):

SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY COMMITTEE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES: 1. Terms of reference (reviewed annually at School QA meeting)

2. The standard template should be used (see page 1)

3. Unconfirmed minutes from meeting should be available within 2 weeks of meeting

4. Wherever possible if a member of staff is not available to attend a deputy should

be identified

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 32

Figure 7

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 33

COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE

Committee Terms of Reference

Biological Sciences sub-

committee

To review and develop the undergraduate curriculum, examinations

and teaching arrangements; to ensure that effective staff/student liaison is undertaken/considered.

To receive and respond to evaluation of the course To receive and respond to comments from the Student

Representatives/Staff Liaison Committee To receive and respond to recommendations from the

University, QAA and GDC and other external reference points as appropriate

To distribute reports and information to all participants in the delivery of Biological Sciences

To review and develop the documentation of the Biological Sciences curriculum and assessment

To receive and respond to External Examiners’ Reports

Integrated Sciences sub-

committee

To review and develop the undergraduate curriculum, examinations and teaching arrangements; to ensure that effective staff/student liaison is undertaken/considered.

To receive and respond to evaluation of the course To receive and respond to comments from the Student

Representatives/Staff Liaison Committee To receive and respond to recommendations from the

University, QAA and GDC and other external reference points as appropriate

To distribute reports and information to all participants in the delivery of Integrated Health Sciences

To review and develop the documentation of the Integrated Health Sciences curriculum and assessment

To receive and respond to External Examiners’ Reports

Basic & Applied Human Diseases sub-committee

To review and develop the undergraduate curriculum, examinations and teaching arrangements; to ensure that effective staff/student liaison is undertaken/considered.

To receive and respond to evaluation of the course To receive and respond to comments from the Student

Representatives/Staff Liaison Committee To receive and respond to recommendations from the

University, QAA and GDC and other external reference points as appropriate

To distribute reports and information to all participants in the delivery of BASHD

To review and develop the documentation of the BASHD curriculum and assessment

To receive and respond to External Examiners’ Reports

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 34

Staff Student Committee

To provide an inclusive environment where all matters can be freely discussed.

To provide a forum for discussion matters appertaining to the student body where information can be exchange in both directions, including preclinical and Clinical maters, ensuring representation from all interested parties.

To ensure that the school complies with university policy

and operates within the SSC legal framework with respect to confidentiality.

To facilitate a forum in which matter of information can

be freely and openly discussed and ideas exchanged.

To facilitate a forum in which concerns can be freely and openly discussed and ideas exchanged.

To provide a forum where the students perspective and

requirements of the role Ecourse in learning and teaching can be discussed.

To consider innovative developments.

School Committee

This is the reporting group to the School with the remit to consider all matters relating to curriculum design, teaching, assessment strategy, student welfare and management. The Committee follows the University guidelines for School Committee. Reporting received from and information disseminated to: Student Support and Welfare BDS Admissions BMedSc Admissions UPIG (Undergraduate-Postgraduate Interface Group) Executive Research Committee Information Technology Joint Hospital / School Health and Safety Committee Birmingham Community Health Care Trust All Exam Boards Continuous Assessment Boards BDS Curriculum Development Committee B.Med. Sc Curriculum Development Committee BSc. Dental Hygiene and Therapy Curriculum

Development Committee Masters in General Dental Practice Curriculum

Development Committee College Quality Assurance Committee

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 35

BDS Curriculum Development

Committee

To review and develop the undergraduate curriculum, examinations and teaching arrangements; to ensure that effective staff/student liaison is undertaken/considered.

To receive and respond to evaluation of the BDS course.

To receive and respond to External Examiners’ reports

To receive and respond to comments from the Staff

Student Committee To receive and respond to recommendations from the

University, HEFCE, QAA and GDC and other external reference points as appropriate.

To distribute reports and information to all participants in

the delivery of the BDS course. To receive reports from all of the committees that report

to BDS Curriculum Development Committee.

School of Dentistry Education Committee

Provision of a termly meeting for the collective discussion of the BDS, BMedSc, BSc Hygiene & Therapy and MSc in General Dental Practice courses.

To provide a forum to explore joint areas of teaching and

sharing teaching practice including outreach training.

To oversee quality assurance mechanisms across educational activity and to receive and consider recommendations for changes in practice prior to forwarding to School Committee for ratification.

To receive in addition to core teaching activity, other

innovative developments to enhance educational delivery.

Review teaching resource allocation.

School Quality Management Committee

To receive updates on any problems identified through the

operation of the quality management framework and how

these issues have been resolved. Including data on patient

safety from DATIX and School Quality Management

Reporting.

To ensure external examiner reports have been received

and responded to, and that any concerns raised have been

satisfactorily acted upon.

To discuss the current level of student clinical experience

(including clinical skills lab).

To ensure that for any course reviews (internal or external)

have been discussed, a suitable action plan developed, and

that subsequently these actions have been implemented.

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 36

School Quality Management Committee (continued)

To receive and discuss outreach teaching quality assurance

visit reports.

To receive and discuss student feedback from the

Birmingham Student Survey (BSS) & National Student

Survey (NSS).

To review and ratify annual programme reviews (BDS,

BMedSc, Hygiene & Therapy BSc, Advanced General

Practice MSc).

To receive and discuss any quality assurance issues from

course leads in Dentistry BDS, Biomaterials, MSc Advanced

General Dental Practice, Biomaterial BMedSc, School of

Hygiene & Therapy BSc & Post Graduate Research.

To receive updates on issues raised at Staff Student

Committee, what actions are proposed and progress on

implementation of these actions.

To receive updates from the Assessment group.

To receive a report from College Quality Committee.

To identify areas of Educational Enhancement for onward

dissemination.

College Quality Committee

1. To lead and oversee the implementation of the University quality assurance framework for all under-graduate and post-graduate (taught and research training) educational provision within MDS through:

Vice Chancellors Review

Module and Annual Programme Review

Collaborative Provision Review

Thematic Review

Specific Checks 2. To consider and make recommendations on all other indicators of QA including:

Student feedback through Staff Student Committees (SSCs) and other routes

Student satisfaction through NSS, SSS, PRES and other routes

Informal and formal complaints

Fitness to practise issues

Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) reports

External examiners reports

School/Cluster QA and E Committee reports

Collaborative provision reports

External QA Reviews 3. To consider and make recommendations on College annual student statistics including those made available to the College through the annual review statistical data-base 4. To consider and make recommendations on College implementation of the University Learning and Teaching Strategy.

Dr M R Milward, QA Lead Dentistry, 2015 37

QUALITY OFFICE CONTACTS Associate Director of Education (Quality) Prof John Skelton Administrator: Ms Julie Ward (ext 43346) Email: j.r.skelton@bham.ac.uk College Quality Manager Ms Sarah Turner Email: s.turner.1@bham.ac.uk Tel: 0121 414 5046 College Quality Officer Mrs Megan Atterbury Email: m.thacker@bham.ac.uk Tel: 0121 414 2892 College Academic Policy Partner Ms Nina Morris Email: n.morris@bham.ac.uk Tel: 0121 414 9031 School of Dentistry Quality Lead Dr Mike Milward Email: M.R.Milward@bham.ac.uk Tel: 0121 466 5132

College Quality Committee (continued)

5. To consider and make recommendations on College implementation of University Codes of Practice relating to educational provision; for example

Staff Development

Teaching Fellows

Supervision of postgraduate research students 6. To respond to issues referred by:

College Teaching and Learning Committee

College Board

University QAC

Other internal and external bodies, as appropriate 7. To keep under review and inform the College QA developments arising from, for example

QAA Academic Framework

Higher Education Academy

European Standards and Guidelines/Bologna Process

Health Education England 8. Where appropriate, to commission appropriate data analyses, studies or external advice in relation to relevant trends or good practice and make recommendations on actions to be taken as a result