Download
1 / 10
100 likes | 111 Views
Read the annual report detailing CIQA's quality management journey, discussions, and initiatives. Explore major deficiencies, post-visit questionnaires, and visiting team criteria. Gain insights into CIQA's commitment to transparency and impactful improvements.
E N D
CIQA Annual ReportBudapest – May 2012 Luca Rossi Marcel Wanner Petr Horin
Set up in 2009 (Hannover) as requested by ENQA (prerequisite for membership) If we evaluate, we are “ethically” obliged to have our own quality management
Three meetings so far (the last in November 2011, a fourth one on 16 May 2012)2011 suggestions discussed by ExCom - 30 November 2011
Agenda CIQA meeting 2011 • CIQA and official EAEVE documents; • Document on Major Deficiencies; • Post-visit questionnaires; • Visiting teams; • ENQA membership; • Any other business.
Document on Major Deficiencies Transparency on this sensitive point crucial for QA Draft based on previous contribution by Prof. Wanner and Dr. Oakley (dated 19th March, 2009) discussed, integrated and submitted to the attention of ExCom Document on Major Deficiencies now available at: http://www.eaeve.org/fileadmin/downloads/visitation_schedule/List_of_Major_Deficiencies.pdf
Document on Major Deficiencies A “famous” SOP statement (“In case of 1 or 2 closely linked Category 1 Deficiencies, ECOVE can judge whether ......”) discussed from the mere perspective of QA It was suggested to: a) unambiguously define which deficiencies are and which are not “closely linked” b) or, to delete “closely linked” from the statement
Post-visit questionnaires • Improved format of post-visit questionnaires (developed by EAEVE Office following previous suggestion by CIQA) http://www.eaeve.org/visitations/postvisit-feedback.html 2) Return rate of post-visit questionnaires in 2011; 3) Other aspects
Return rate of post-visit questionnaires in 2011 In 2011, 9 Faculties were visited and 4 revisited. Potentially, 80 questionnaires should have been available in the EAEVE archives: 13 by the Deans, 9 by the LOs, 54 by the visiting experts (students included) and 4 by the Chairmen on revisits. Regrettably, only 19 questionnaires (23.8% of the potential ones) were available; of these, 2 were by the Deans, 2 by the LOs, 15 by the experts. Evidence of limited awareness of the key importance of feed-back from a QA perspective CIQA have signaled to ExCom the urgency to improve the return rate of questionnaires through a dedicated strategy In passing, no major problem signaled in the 19 returned questionnaires.
Visiting teams • Criteria for composition of the Visiting Teams; • 2) Composition of the Visiting teams for the upcoming two years (2012 and 2013); • 3) Official list (“Register”) of the visiting experts. Criteria for enrolment and, eventually, exclusion.
Visiting teams • full transparency on the criteria for composition of the Visiting Teams. A list of possible criteria drafted • policies to improve the available number of: i) female experts (both Academic and not-Academic); ii) non-Academic experts in Clinical Sciences; iii) experts wishing to accept charmainship responsibility • 3) full transparency on criteria for enrolment of new applicants and, eventually, for exclusion of individual experts from the official EAEVE “Register”. Availability to draft a list of possible criteria
