Question+5

** Scenario 2: The roles and responsibilities for Quality Assurance outside of the institution ** Your programme/course has been selected for an audit by the QAA. Your Department Head/Dean has asked you to lead the team that prepares the documentation and interviewed by the auditors. • Question 5: Within the institution, who can provide support to a programme being audited and what support can they provide?

There are several sources of support available within the ESO. > The institution is invited to appoint an institutional facilitator (IF) to support the review (whether Institutional, hybrid or collaborative provision review). The role of the IF is intended to improve the flow of information between the team and the institution. It is envisaged that the IF will be member of the institution's staff. > > The role of the IF is to: > > •act as the primary institutional contact for the QAA officer during the preparations for the review, including the Preparatory meeting. Where an institution is having a separate collaborative review or where the review includes visits to partner institutions (the hybrid model), the IF will act as the primary contact between the institution undergoing review, the collaborative partner and QAA > > •act as the primary institutional contact for the review team during the first team visit and review visit > > •provide advice and guidance to the team on the SED and any supporting documentation at the first team visit, and, thereafter, further sources of information > > •provide advice and guidance to the team on institutional structures, policies, priorities and procedures > > •keep an updated list of evidence presented to the review team throughout the review, to be confirmed by the review secretary > > •ensure that the institution has a good understanding of the matters raised by the review team at the first team visit, thus contributing to the effectiveness of the review, and to the subsequent enhancement of quality and standards within the institution > > •meet the review team at the team's request during the review, in order to provide further guidance on sources of information and clarification of matters relating to institutional structures, policies, priorities and procedures > > •work with the lead student representative (LSR) to ensure that the student representative body is informed of, and understands, the progress of the review team. > > At the first team visit or review visit it is not expected that the IF is present for the review team's private meetings. However, the IF will have the opportunity for regular meetings which will provide opportunities for both the team and the institution to seek further clarification outside of the formal meetings. This development is intended to improve communications between the institution and the team during the review and enable institutions to gain a better understanding of the team's lines of inquiry during the review. We suggest (and make financial provision for) the IF and LSR to join the review team at its evening meal on the first evening of the visit. > The IF should develop a relationship with the LSR that is appropriate to the institution and to the organisation of the student body. It is anticipated that the LSR will be involved in the oversight and possibly preparation of the SWS, and with selecting students to meet the review team. In a hybrid or collaborative provision review the LSR may be able to advise on how best to involve students from collaborative partners. There is more about the role of the LSR in Annex 6.
 * A management Committee through analysis of committee and subcommittee minutes.
 * An Academic Board and Subsidiary Committees. Through analysis of reviews for professional accreditation and annual reports.
 * A Board of Examiners through moderation
 * A Board of tutors through regular feedback
 * Student Union through regular feedback in the staff student liaison and programme committee.
 * Welfare officer
 * **The role of the institutional facilitator**