Accreditation of Courses and Programmes

Respondent Details

* UKIPG Member Body:
* Name of person responding:
* E-mail of responder:
Using Standard Occupational Classifications, identify the ‘job titles’ to which your course approval relates (e.g. 2215 dental practitioners).
* This organisation undertakes course or programme accreditation:	As a Statutory Regulator Under a Royal Charter Under another authority We do not do any course or programme accreditation
When was your accreditation process last fully revised?
When might you be planning to do a review?
What was the reason for your most recent / next planned review?
Is your own process subject to any external quality assurance review by an ‘oversight’ regulator?	Yes No
Is your own process subject to any external quality assurance review by a UKAS accredited certification body (eg for BS9001 by LRQA)?	Yes No
If you answered 'yes' to either of the last two questions, please give more detail.
Please give details of any international ‘mutual recognition of accreditation’ scheme to which you belong.

Accreditation / Approval Practice

Delegation / Cooperation. Select all of the options that apply to your organisation.	We undertake all the processes ourselves. We are party to a pan-profession consortium for this process. We delegate the process to approved professional bodies. We undertake the process alongside our related professional bodies. We undertake the process alongside our related statutory regulator. We undertake the process alongside other organisations (e.g. QAA).
Documentation. Select all of the options that apply to your organisation.	We have our own comprehensive documentation and data set requirements and insist on full and original completion. We have some specific documentation and data set requirements but rely mainly on other existing sources (eg HESA). We rely entirely on documentation and data already prepared for other requirements (including for self-assessment or internal quality management systems).
Training of Panel Members. What training do you give to your panel members?	We run a formal training programme for all new panel members. We do not provide formal training, but require new panel members to attend a visitation as a supernumerary. We simply rely on the existing professionalism on new panel members to learn on the job from fellow panellists.
Visitations. In the process of accreditation or approval or courses and programmes, when do you make a formal panel visit?

Outcomes

Which statement best sums up your approach to the outcome of the process?

We believe that we are operating on behalf of the public interest and so put the full outcomes of the process in the public domain.
We believe that the public interest is best served by a public summary of whether the programme meets minimum criteria, but reserve detailed matters of potential improvement.
We believe that we are undertaking a peer review from which public, providers and learners will benefit best from an ‘in confidence’ approach and continuous improvement. So we do not publish any report; only ‘accredited’ or not.

Costs and Charging

Which statements sum up your approach to cost-recovery of this activity?

We are funded to do this work for the public benefit and accept the full cost.
We are funded to do this work for the public benefit in the UK and accept the cost of UK activity, but not of EU-courses.
We are funded to do this work for the public benefit in the UK and accept the cost of UK activity, but not of non-UK and non-EU courses.
We are a world-wide professional body, and absorb the cost of direct accreditation and the costs of participating in international mutual recognition schemes.
We charge a fee to course providers.
We charge travel and subsistence to course providers.
We do not charge for initial qualification courses but do for CPD provision.

Streamlining

It has been suggested that these processes could be ‘streamlined’ through more consistency of approach between the range of professional and statutory regulatory bodies involved.

Would you be interested in looking at scope for improving consistency and some standardisation of approach?

Yes Yes in principle, but believe that there may be statutory obstacles No