1 / 32

Institutional Review

Institutional Review. Prof. Wagdy Talaat EMRO, WHO Consultant for Health Manpower Development EMRO Project Director for Accreditation in HPE. The purpose of the institutional review ?.

durin
Download Presentation

Institutional Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Institutional Review Prof. Wagdy Talaat EMRO, WHO Consultant for Health Manpower Development EMRO Project Director for Accreditation in HPE

  2. The purpose of the institutional review? • Meeting the public interest in knowing that the institutions are providing higher education awards and qualifications of an acceptable quality and appropriate academic standards.

  3. The scope of the review Effectiveness of quality assurance and standards mechanisms with evidences Of continuous quality improvement and working within efficient and cost effective process The completeness and reliability of the published information to a wide range of stakeholders about the quality of learning opportunity.

  4. Conduct of Review

  5. Characteristics of Review Process • Consistent( same process in different institutions) • Equitable( all institutions are treated equally). • Fair • Respectful( respects the institution’s mission& chosen aims). • Disciplined( conforms with protocols of AB). • Collegial • Constructive • Open • Transparent

  6. Conduct of Review • Good preparation by the following three involved parties is essential: • Accrediting Body( AB) • Reviewing Team • Institution

  7. Preliminary Action by the AB • In sequence • Identification of subject sectors to be reviewed( Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Dentistry, etc.). • Identification of institutions to be reviewed within a given time slot. • Institutions informs the AB of subject specialisms within the provision.

  8. Preliminary Action by the AB • In sequence • Determination of magnitude of review in man-days. • Selection of Chairman and agreed number of subject specialist reviewers. • Agreement between the AB and institution on precise commencement date of review.

  9. Preliminary Action by the AB • In sequence • Selection of peer Reviewers and acceptance by institution. • Institution sends agreed documentation to AB 6-8 weeks prior to first day of review. • AB makes documentation available to chairman.

  10. Preliminary Action by Institution • Initial submission to the AB. • Documentation to be sent to AB/ Review Team in advance of the review. • Preparation of academic staff to respond to review. • Allocation of responsibility for aspects of review. • Nomination of an institutional facilitator to liaise between the review team and institution. • Documentation to be made available to review team during review. • Allocation of a suitable, remote place for the review team.

  11. Scope of Review • Governance and Administration • Educational programs • Research and other scholary activities ( services) • Academic staff performance • Students activities • Community involvement • Continuous renewal.

  12. Research and other scholary activities • Range of activities • Publications • Projects( interdisciplinary/ intersectorial/ interpreunorial).

  13. Students Activities • Experience of students as learners in a favourable learning environment. • Engagement of students in the planning, evaluation, and reviewing of their institution’s program( internal/ external audit) • Procedures of students complaints. • Students are invited to submit their own report to the review team during their participation in the review sessions.

  14. Community involvement • Community Empowerment • Community Participation • Community Partnership

  15. Activities during visit • Meeting with top administration • Meeting with academic staff • Meeting with students and other stake holders • Observation of resources: library, labs, class/ lecture rooms, audiovisual unit, teaching hospital, etc. • Attending sample of teaching/ learning activities. • Time for Reviewers to scrutinise new documents

  16. Documentation

  17. Documents to be sent in advance( portable) • Self study/ mid-annual/ annual reports • Current course and program specifications • Latest course and program reports • Strategic study, if available.

  18. Documents available at time of visit( bulky) • Teaching timetables • Samples of students work, exam results • Documentary films/ video clips/ Albums • Institution/Academic Staff Awards • Minutes of significant meetings • Questionnaires raw data

  19. Self-study analysis • Is there a clear, shared, vision for the whole institution? • Is there a documented, public Mission? • Does the self study addresses all academic activities( educational programs, research, and community involvement? • Does the evaluation of each activity informed by a clear statement of aims and are these aims) related to the mission( mission sensitive) • Does the self study comply with the criteria for self study? • Are the evaluations supported by evidence? • Does the self study demonstrate a commitment to accountability, and reflect true developmental engagement procedures?

  20. Reporting

  21. Draft 1: Reviewers finalise their sections of the Report and send it to the Chair Reviewer. • Draft 2: Chairperson edits to avoid repetition, contradiction, and to ensure protocols have been preserved. • Report returns to Peer Reviewers for any comments on edited draft on matters of fact, substance, or tone. • Draft 3: Chairman incorporates reviewers comments and send it to the Editor who makes suggestions for improvement. • Draft 4: Chair consider editor’s comments and send the final draft to AB for publication.

  22. Role of Peer Reviewer

  23. Qualities Required • Subject/ discipline expert • Credibility with the subject area academic community( Heads of institutions and Managers in Sector Committees of SCU) • Clear oral and written communication skills • Freedom to commit the time required for the review process • Ability to organize and chair meetings • Ability to work according to a prescribed set of protocols and procedures • Ability to work well in a small team • Ability to work intensively to deadlines • Ability to form judgment based on evidence and to report professionally

  24. Ethical Considerations • Reviewers are not appointed to teams reviewing their own institutions • No conflict of interest with reviewed institution

  25. I wish you a very peaceful and fruitful peer reviewing process. • Thank you

  26. Outline of the review process -Preliminary visit: 36 weeks before the visit assistant director visits and provides briefing on the review process guidance on the SED and students submission. -12 weeks before the visit: the agency appoints the review team and notify the institution and receives the SED and the students submission. -Briefing visit: 5 weeks before the review visit undertaken by the review team and the AD at the management level of the institution, it contains detailed lines of enquiry for the review. -Review visit: lasts 5 days AD joins team for the final day, discussion with staff and students, and pursues selected thematic trails. -Review visit+2 week: letter outlining the review finding sent to the institution. -Review visit +8 weeks:draft report sent to the institution. -Review visit +12 weeks: institution responds to the report. -Review visit +20weeks: report is published.

  27. What are the resources the information get from? -use of reference points: the information required as part of the quality assurance and standards framework. • A self evaluation document (SED). -the mid-cycle progress report. -information submitted by representative of students. -reports on the institution by the agency or other relevant bodies within the duration of the review cycle. -information acquired during the briefing visit, and the review visit.

  28. Judgmentand report Broad confidence: the institution is managing quality and standards soundly and effectively and the future capacity for maintaining quality and standards appears good. Limited confidence:the agency has doubts either about the current assurance of quality and standardsor the capacity to maintain quality. No confidence: very occasionally the team may make such judgment.

  29. Key areas? Two areas must be given particular attention, in making such judgment Strong use of independent external examiners in summative assessment procedures. Similar use of independent external persons in the internal periodic review of the disciplines or programmes.

  30. Thematic trials The trials are concerned with testing how well institutional processes work and how effective they are in practice at the level of individual disciplines, programmes, and/or academic departments, the selection of the thematic trials is made at the briefing visit .

  31. Points to be explored in the review visit • The institution approach to quality assurance. • The relationship between institutional procedures and their operation. • The institution’s interaction with the university, where appropriate. • The role collaborative partner institutions, where appropriate. • The ways in which the institution is using the external reference points. • Procedures for student complaints and academic appeals • Complete and reliable published information. • The ways of students support and optimizing the learning opportunities. • The ways in which the quality of the teaching staff is assured

More Related