1. Case Study – QAA and BPS IHEQN, DUBLIN Patricia Le Rolland Mike Carpenter Director of Quality, PMETBMembership & Qualifications Formerly Assistant Director, QAA Directorate Manager, BPS

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. BPS – Accreditation Criteria Peer review process Physical resources Human resources Formal teaching and research components Personal and professional development of trainees

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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……

10. BPS - outcomes Three main areas: 1)pool of assessors 2)timing of visits 3)Production of a handbook

11. 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 !

12. 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