Case Study – QAA and BPS IHEQN, DUBLIN

Patricia Le Rolland Mike Carpenter

Director of Quality, PMETB Membership & Qualifications Formerly Assistant Director, QAA Directorate Manager, BPS

QAA• The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher

Education (QAA) was established in 1997 to provide an integrated quality assurance service for UK higher education

• It is QAA’s responsibility to safeguard the public interest in sound standards of higher education qualifications, and to encourage continuous improvement in the management of the quality of higher education

• This is achieved by reviewing standards and quality, and providing reference points that help to define clear and explicit standards

BPS

• Professional body for psychologists in the UK. Established in 1901

• 45,000 members

• Accreditation is a key activity– over 700 undergraduate programmes– over 100 postgraduate programmes– 33 programmes in clinical psychology

QAA – Major Review• Prototypes of periodic external peer review

January 2002 – June 2002• 3 (+) yr Contract with DoH (England), awarded

through tender Feb 2003• Peer review of NHS-funded healthcare

programmes in England, equal emphasis on practice and academic/campus – 90 visits over 3 years in England, 5 days, average team of 7

• 11 professions, 2 regulators, 9+ prof bodies, 20 SHAs

BPS – Accreditation Criteria

• Peer review process

• Physical resources

• Human resources

• Formal teaching and research components

• Personal and professional development of trainees

Collaborative working – external factors

• Handbook for major review agreed by all stakeholders July 2003

• Clinical psychology (plus 3 other disciplines) added to the scope in August 2003 by DoH

• Subject benchmarks not in place for additional disciplines

• Previous developmental work/steering group had not included these disciplines or relevant professional bodies

Collaborative working – BPS factors

• Opportunity to understand and inform the Major Review process

• Reduce the burden of review on departments

• Opportunity to identify common elements of the two processes

Challenges

• “Nobody asked us” – true but it is linked to funding

• “Nobody involved us” – true but now we are going to, in real terms and as much as possible

• “We do not know you” –true, face-to-face meetings – 50 trainers and us, officers, representatives of the profession

Solutions

• Meetings• Written confirmations• Membership of key group/s• Officers learn to trust each other• Problems – expect them, greet them and work

on solutions together• Hiccups – Oh! you meant that!• Then move on……

BPS - outcomes

Three main areas:

1) pool of assessors

2) timing of visits

3) Production of a handbook

Progress and improve

• Scheduling• Acceptance of each others reports• Acceptance of the areas that are not

collaborative, and unlikely ever to be so• Production of a document that explains to others

about the collaboration

• Dissemination – here today!

University perspective – outcomes of collaboration

• Good idea, but different bodies will have different focus / requirements

• Improved communication

• Improved sense of confidence that procedures more transparent

• Some reduction in the burden of review