Nursing BSc – Programme timetables
Our interim year planners will shortly be available for download from this page. If you are a…
Source: www.glos.ac.uk. All Rights Reserved. 2025 University of Gloucestershire
The University Executive Committee is responsible for all matters associated with the development and management of the university.
Last updated: 11 February 2025
Section 1 Themes, Principles and Processes
Section 2 Course Validation, Modification and Closure
Section 3 Annual Course Enhancement and Monitoring
Section 4 Periodic Review of Schools
Section 5 Collaborative Partnerships
Appendix 1.A Key Terms
Appendix 2.A Education Strategy Criteria for New Proposals
Appendix 2.B New Course Approval Process
Appendix 2.Ci Membership of the UoG Development Team
Appendix 2.Cii University Membership of the Development Team for Collaborative Partner Developments
Appendix 2.D Definitive Validation Documentation
Appendix 2.E Validation Criteria
Appendix 2.F External Consultation for Validations
Appendix 2.G Course and Module Modifications
Appendix 2.H Changes to Existing Provision that Require a Validation Process
Appendix 3.A Categorisation of Collaborative Partnerships
1.1 The University holds Degree Awarding Powers that enable it to confer both taught and research degrees. As an independent body, it has overall responsibility for the academic standards and quality of the qualifications it awards wherever and in whatever context that award is conferred, including those awards validated for collaborative partners. The University has a well-deserved reputation for providing high quality and respected higher education. This Quality Framework describes how it sets and maintains robust academic standards, and assures and enhances the quality of learning opportunities.
1.2 The Quality Framework underpins delivery of the ambition articulated in the Education Strategy 2022-2027, which has six goals:
Goal 1: Create and sustain a future-facing education that is inclusive, professionalised, and multi-disciplinary
Goal 2: Every student’s learning experience enables them to be flexible, professionalised, enterprising, ambitious for their own future, active in their own learning, and digitally literate
Goal 3: All staff in the university community as a whole are adept and agile, flexible, ambitious, comfortable with accountability and change, and digitally fluent
Goal 4: Our research activity complements and underpins our teaching priorities so that our teaching is truly research-rich, innovative, enterprising, and always current, and so that students are able to participate in appropriate research and knowledge-exchange pursuit
Goal 5: Develop and sustain academic and employer partnerships that help create and sustain globalised mindsets, enhance the professionalised and industry-led nature of our curriculum, and build our capacity for research with impact
Goal 6: We will develop and strengthen our systems and processes to ensure efficient and effective ways of working, enable continuous improvement, and support our high academic standards
1.3 The processes developed within the Quality Framework align with the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) UK Quality Code (2024), the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG 2015) and the Office for Students (OfS) Regulatory Framework for Higher Education in England (2022).
1.4 Our Quality Framework will:
a. Generate reliable information and prompt, effective action.
b. Be fit for purpose and ensure purposes, procedures and outcomes are clearly communicated in order to engage the active and willing support of all those who use them.
c. Firstly, meet the needs of students, staff, Academic Board and the University’s Council; secondly, meet the requirements of external stakeholders and regulatory bodies.
d. Be flexible and responsive to future change.
1.5 The Quality Framework contains these integrated processes:
Locating Responsibility and Accountability within Schools
1.6 A key priority of the quality framework is the empowerment of Academic Course Leaders (ACLs), Associate Heads of School (AHoS), Deputy Heads of School (DHoS), and Heads of School (HoS) to ensure that responsibility for quality is located at the appropriate level within Schools.
Balancing Enhancement and Assurance
1.7 Combined with a risk management approach to quality, a focus on enhancement enables us to support innovation and build competence and resilience; to encourage risk-taking with appropriate mitigation rather than seeking to avoid risk.
Risk Management Approach
A risk management approach enables the quality framework to facilitate enhancement, innovation and the informed development of the university’s portfolio whilst also providing a proportionate response to any risks that may arise. A risk management approach enables the University to assess future potential risks and the ability of those in the provider role (e.g. a course team, School and/or collaborative partner) to manage these risks. A risk management approach considers past performance of a School or partner but it also considers the competence of the provider going forward and the contexts within which it is operating now.
1.9 At various times, levels of risk are assessed for the course or School. ACEM provides RAG-rated risk data to course teams. AHoS and HoS will draw upon this information for School Continuous Review meetings.
1.10 Risk assessments may be undertaken as a SWOT analysis. A brief rationale will be required. A risk assessment is always informed by an agreed range of information (e.g. competitor analysis) and data (e.g. National Student Survey [NSS], Annual Course Evaluation [ACE], Graduate Outcomes). Information and data need to be supplemented by local knowledge of the external context, staffing and other resource issues. It is the analysis and contextualisation of this complete evidence base by those completing the assessment task that makes this activity transformational rather than transactional.
1.11 RAG-rating uses traffic light colours to assign and clearly represent a level of risk. The University uses RAG-rating to trigger different levels of oversight of an activity/area possibly resulting in bespoke interventions drawing on different expertise or resource from within the University or externally.
Externality – Active Engagement with the Subject/Sector
1.12 Externality is central to our approach to enhancement, enabling us to learn from best practice and to use this to inform the continuous improvement of Schools and courses. Staff are expected to remain cognisant of relevant sector-wide benchmarks and Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements. Colleagues are actively encouraged to engage with their subject communities nationally and where appropriate, internationally and to take on research activity, external examining, and other roles, perhaps within a PSRB, to ensure that the work of the University continues to be informed by best practice in each subject area.
1.13 Externality is fundamental to enhancement and assurance processes. Enhancement actively encourages innovation (risk taking) in learning and teaching and colleagues should be able to draw on suitable ‘expert’ resource both from within and outside of the University to facilitate this.
More and Better Student Engagement
1.14 Because the student voice is an integral part of the enhancement process, student consultation should be treated as a priority activity Students are partners in their learning experience at the University; they and their representatives are actively involved in decision-making about their learning opportunities in different fora within the University.
1.15 Equally, the University expects collaborative partners to engage in a meaningful way with students and to demonstrate how this engagement is enhancing learning opportunities. Within Schools Course Representatives relate both to their ACL and to Student Voice Assistants, who meet regularly with AHoS. Different patterns of student engagement work for different courses. So long as the dialogue between students and the ACL is strong, constructive and leads to the enhancement of student learning opportunities, how this is achieved is of less importance.
Academic Governance
1.16 Whilst Academic Board retains overall responsibility, delegated authority for accountability and responsibility for enhancement is devolved to the School or, in some instances, a collaborative partner; with a risk management approach ensuring appropriate oversight is exercised. In this way our processes will be implemented proportionately.
1.17 Validation and Modification: These arrangements cover the development and approval of proposals for new courses for home provision and for those that have been developed and brought forward by collaborative partners. The University’s validation criteria (Appendix 2.E) set out the expectations all new course developments are required to meet. The University will operate a staged process that includes confirmation of initial approval to proceed to validation based on the approval of a business case. The role of the HoS in implementing the risk management approach to the development during the first two stages of the process is important. All proposed course developments will be required to meet the criteria set out in Goal 1 of the Education Strategy (Appendix 2.A). Alongside this, the risk management approach considers the internal and external context, the capacity, capability and prior experience of the development team, in order to determine the level of risk each development presents. This information will be used to determine the amount of time, external and internal support and any other resources that will be required to empower the development team to bring the proposal to successful validation and launch. A Validation Standing Panel (VSP) will be established but the type of validation process and the level of external and internal scrutiny required will be proportional to the risk presented. Modifications to existing provision will be undertaken via the Standing Panel process but where appropriate (i.e. changes to indicative resources, indicative syllabus, module tutor or the brief description), these will be signed off within the School. Revalidation does not exist as a process at the University, so provision that requires change beyond the remit of the process for modifications will need to be brought forward as a new validation.
1.18 Annual Course Enhancement and Monitoring (ACEM): The ACEM cycle evaluates courses on an annual basis, developing action plans to improve quality, enhance the Student Experience, and support achievement of consistently improved NSS results, that will then feed into improved outcomes (continuation, completion, and progression), and ultimately Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) Gold in 2026/27. The ACEM Cycle has five steps:
1.19 Periodic Review of Schools: is undertaken on a risk-assessed basis within a maximum six yearly cycle, with the particular focus of the review being informed by the risk profile of the School. Schools presenting a greater level of risk undertake periodic review more regularly and receive a greater level of scrutiny. Periodic Review of Schools addresses all the business of the School including teaching, research, business development, consultancy and collaborative provision. The panel includes external membership and internal membership from a different School, professional departments and the Students Union. Student representatives are invited to a meeting with the panel.
2.1 As a Degree Awarding Body (DAB) the University is responsible for setting and maintaining academic standards and assuring and enhancing the quality of learning opportunities in relation to all course design, development and approval activity. This responsibility relates to all the University’s awards including those validated for collaborative partners.
2.2 The validation of new courses and the modification of existing courses are two of the means through which the University ensures the level of our awards and qualifications aligns with the QAA’s Higher Education Credit Framework and UK Quality Code. Where a decision has been taken to discontinue or close a course, the University ensures that its process and practice protects student experience and academic standards in line with the UK Quality Code and OfS expectations.
2.3 This section has been written for:
2.4 This section sets out the procedures for home and collaborative provision for:
2.5 Create and sustain a future-facing education that is inclusive, professionalised, and multi-disciplinary: All proposed and existing courses are required to meet the criteria set out in Goal 1 of the Education Strategy (Appendix 2.A), ensuring that those criteria remain a clear priority in all development activity. The modification process recognises that at times existing courses need to make minor changes to ensure they continue to meet the Education Strategy criteria.
2.6 The implementation of a risk management approach: All course development activity presents risks and these must be understood and addressed. To do this a risk management approach is implemented that identifies and considers the internal and external context, as well as the capacity, capability and prior experience of the development team, in order to determine the level of risk each development presents. For developments brought forward by collaborative partners a risk management approach ensures that the partner has the capacity to both develop and deliver the provision. The capacity of the University to actively support and manage the partnership is also considered.
This risk-management information is used to determine the amount of time, external and internal support, and any other resources required to empower the development team to bring the proposal to successful validation and launch within the agreed timescale. (NB: If not taken to validation within the agreed period, course
developments will need to go back through the New Course Approval process.) For the modification of existing provision, the risk management approach ensures a proportionate level of scrutiny for the significance of the change proposed. If necessary, a course team may seek or be required to undertake a new validation, via New Course Approval.
2.7 An enhancement-led approach: The focus on enhancement at the academic development stage (Stage 2) defines the University’s approach to validation. If risks to a development are identified, we are committed to empowering the development team to address them; where necessary allocating additional targeted resource to enhance the development process and increase the likelihood of a successful academic validation and launch.
2.8 Externality: Ensuring an independent view within the development and validation of new provision is a fundamental building block of our approach to the setting and maintenance of academic standards. In order to be transparent and publicly accountable, we make careful use of external academic and professional expertise during the development and validation of new courses. To ensure an independent perspective in relation to the modification of existing provision, the External Examiner for a course is fully involved by the ACL in any discussion around the modification process.
2.9 Student voice: the University’s Education Strategy commits to an ‘active partnership’ with students where they are proactively engaged ‘to secure their participation in module, course and assessment design along with regular stocktakes’ (Goal 1.b). As such, no validation or modification process should be undertaken without student input. The expectation is for students to be fully engaged in developments which shape and reshape the University’s provision.
2.10 Validation: A Summary of the Process
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
2.11 The purpose of the validation of new provision and the modification of existing provision is to ensure a rigorous, transparent approval process that can be recorded with the agreed outcomes being disseminated quickly and easily to those within and beyond the University who need to have this information.
2.12 Stage 1
a. Most potential new course developments arise from strategy discussions within Schools, with scoping of the possible development being supported by the School’s leadership and other stakeholders.
b. Collaborative partners wishing to develop additional courses should have discussions about proposed new developments with AQEI who will ensure the appropriate School is drawn into these discussions in a timely way. Most new developments will be discussed at Annual Partnership Review meetings. It is important to ensure the knowledge and full support of the School that will have academic oversight of the proposed course. A designated ALT for the partnership will complete the NCA process (including upload of the partner’s market analysis and rationale) in consultation with others in the School and University (Appendix 2.B).
c. For home provision, in consultation with professional departments Schools should submit a new course proposal via the NCA system (Appendix 2.B), to include evidence that the following have been considered:
d. Consultation with the following professional departments:
e. HoS are responsible for approving all new course proposals for submission to AAC, accompanied by their assessment of the particular challenges each development presents and the capacity of the School to manage these (Appendix 2.B). For existing collaborative partners, External Relationships and AQEI will provide brief assessments about the current operations of the partner. This information will inform a proposal for the level of external consultation and targeted internal support that will be required to enable the development School or partner to complete the work successfully.
f. AAC only approves new course proposals to proceed to validation if they meet the criteria set out within Goal 1 of the Education Strategy (Appendix 2.A). Proposals that do not meet these criteria are turned down and may be returned to the School for further development.
g. All resource requirements for new collaborative partnerships are signed off at University Executive Committee (UEC). For additional courses at existing collaborative partners, HoS are required to confirm their support for the proposal and to commit to resourcing it from within their School. Resource requirements for home provision are considered by AAC when the proposal is approved but exceptionally resources may be revisited by the appropriate committee prior to validation if issues arise during the development phase that make this necessary.
h. AAC considers the potential risk the development presents in order to confirm:
i. It is recognised that exceptionally some proposals will not be able to align with the standard annual development cycle and such proposals will be considered by AAC as they arise providing one or more of the following additional criteria are met:
2.13 Stage 2
a. For home provision the School is responsible for the development of the course and a development team leader should be identified prior to AAC approval. Consultation with Library, IT, Estates, and Digital Learning Designers (AQEI) should inform the development, but colleagues from those areas will not necessarily be part of the development team membership (Appendix 2.Ci).
b. A partner is responsible for the development of their proposals that have been approved by AAC to proceed to validation. The relevant School will ensure that an Academic Link Tutor (ALT) has been appointed to provide academic advice and support on the development.
c. The development team is tasked with producing the definitive documentation for the proposed course. This documentation must conform to the expectations set out in Appendix 2.D.
d. The academic development of the course is enhancement-led and this is clearly reflected in the way targeted support for the development process is provided:
e. The amount and format of external consultation required will vary according to the nature of the development and the particular challenges that pertain. For developments that require significant support, external consultation arrangements will include a requirement for a report covering agreed areas including academic level and the use of external reference points (Appendix 2.F). This formal external consultation could take place at one or more points in the development process and exceptionally more than one external academic consultant could be involved. External academic consultation could take place by correspondence or could include a meeting with the development team. At the other end of the scale, where the course is a direct replacement for provision that is being phased out, it may be appropriate to draw on the expertise of the current External Examiner. Whatever arrangement is agreed, a formal response from the development team is required to all the feedback provided by external consultants, indicating what if any changes to their proposals have resulted from the feedback received.
f. Student representatives are important stakeholders who are consulted on all proposals being developed in their subject area but they do not usually attend development team meetings. Where a new subject area is being developed, the Students’ Union (SU) may be invited to nominate a representative to meet with the development team to discuss the proposals. Collaborative partners developing new provision are expected to have equivalent systems in place to ensure that they engage students appropriately in the development of new provision.
g. Collaborative partners submit draft validation documentation to the ALT who will forward it to the HoS, via the AHoS QSS, once they have confirmed it is ready. Draft validation documentation for home provision is submitted to the HoS, via the AHoS QSS. In signing off the documentation the HoS and AHoS QSS are making a judgment that it meets the validation criteria (Appendix 2.E) and that the resource arrangements they agreed remain valid. Validation
documentation is only submitted to the Academic Quality team once it has been signed off by the HoS.
h. For UK collaborative proposals, if a tour of the partner facilities will not be possible as part of the Validation/Delivery Approval event then a separate Location of Delivery event will need to be organised. For international developments, submission of a video of the partner’s facilities highlighting areas relevant to the programmes will be required alongside confirmation in writing of the equipment and resources available.
2.14 Stage 3
a. The academic validation is overseen by either a Validation Standing Panel (VSP), a sub-group of AAC, or by a Bespoke Validation Panel. It is the responsibility of the VSP and the Panel of a Bespoke Validation event to confirm that:
b. The Panel may make the following decisions:
c. The validation process incorporates a risk management approach and therefore provides a level of scrutiny that is proportionate to the potential risk to which the development exposes the institution. Options will include:
d. The University’s validation criteria require that every course:
e. A VSP will usually include:
f. A bespoke validation event will usually include:
g. The Chair of VSP will be the Director of Academic Quality, Enhancement and Innovation (DAQEI) or nominee.
h. AHoS QSS are members of VSP and will usually act as internal panel members.
i. All members of the VSP should have access to the validation documentation at least one week (ideally two weeks) prior to the VSP meeting.
j. VSP discussion should focus on the content of the validation paperwork, on the development process to date, and on the development team’s response to external and student consultation.
k. VSP meetings are officered by AQEI.
l. VSP makes a recommendation to AAC regarding the outcome of every development considered.
2.15 The modification of existing provision is designed to enable changes to the definitive validation documentation to be managed securely but efficiently, ensuring that they are properly recorded and communicated to all those who need to know. Modifications fall into three categories (defined by the Course and Module Modifications document):
a. Minor module modifications are signed off at the level of the School without wider consultation (brief description, indicative syllabus, indicative resources, learning and teaching activities, module tutor).
b. Major module modifications require consultation with the EE and with students. These changes can be actioned by the School once evidence of agreement has been provided to Academic Quality Services (AQS) and permission given (module learning outcomes, mark scheme, assessment).
NB: multiple category B modifications may be treated as a category C change to a Course. Teams contemplating a number of individual modifications should discuss their plans with AQS to make sure that they use the correct process. AQS may refer the proposals to the Chair of VSP for a decision on the type of scrutiny to be undertaken.
c. Major course level modifications require submission to and approval by VSP, with all business considered being either minimal or low risk.
ACLs must consider and address the implications for franchise delivery and for courses which adopt their modules when making changes. Evidence of consultation with affected courses must be included in the paperwork submitted.
2.16 Prior to the beginning of each academic year dates for validation standing panels are confirmed. Additional dates will be added if business increases. VSPs will be stood down if there is no business to consider.
2.17 Change of Award Title
a. An application for a change of an existing award title is a significant change for a course team to request because, if approved, a new course code is required; recruitment is suspended to the existing provision; and the phasing out of the existing course must be dovetailed with the introduction of the new award title.
b. The expectation should be for continuing students to remain on the phasing out award unless there are pressing reasons for this not to be the case. The School should carefully consider ways to safeguard the experience and outcomes of students on both old and new awards when making an application for a change of award title.
c. The effective management of communications with existing and prospective students is essential as is the need to be mindful of Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) requirements (2023) and the timely communication with staff from a range of professional departments and those within the school.
d. AAC receives the completed form and appended supporting evidence from:
2.18 Other Course Changes
a. Schools can also seek to introduce either new award title/s or a new/additional mode of delivery for a course. Again, these are significant changes which require AAC approval, based on the rationale provided and any appended supporting evidence, because of the implications for portfolio management and student experience.
b. The effective management of communications with existing and prospective students is essential as is the need to be mindful of CMA requirements and the timely communication with staff from a range of professional departments and those within the school.
2.19 Course Closure
When the decision is made to close a course, for whatever reason and through whatever process, the School concerned is responsible for completing the Course Discontinuation Form for approval by AAC. This form ensures due consideration is given to students remaining on the course, and also details any implications for other courses.
The University’s Student Protection Plan to Protect Continuation of Study 2024-25, required by the OfS of all registered HE providers, identifies that:
A ‘discontinuation and phasing-out of courses’ procedure is followed when a course is identified for closure in order to capture and monitor teaching-out arrangements during the phasing out period to ensure not only the continued quality of teaching and learning but also the maintenance of the student experience until all students have completed their studies.
2.20 Changes to Schools
a. Schools are key strategic units of the University, providing a focus for academic endeavour and the student experience. They are also critical organisational units by which its systems and resources are configured. It is therefore important for proposed changes to be appropriately considered and approved through the academic governance framework in order to ensure that all necessary stakeholders are formally consulted and informed of changes.
b. Wider debate and consultation is encouraged. HoS who are considering changes should, when appropriate, discuss proposals with their staff and colleagues from Professional Services before proceeding through the process. In terms of the establishment or removal of a School, it is anticipated that such discussions will be led by UEC and, as such, will not necessarily follow this procedure in every detail. However, it is anticipated that these major changes should still be reported through the academic governance framework via AAC and Academic Board as outlined below.
c. A brief proposal summary paper should be presented to AAC by the HoS. AAC should give detailed consideration to the proposal, particularly to anticipate potential implications and formulate any necessary action plans (e.g. who will be responsible for messaging to students?). Following discussion, a recommendation should be made by AAC to Academic Board where, if appropriate, approval of the proposal will be recorded.
3.1 The UK higher education system is based on the principle of the autonomy and responsibility of the degree-awarding body in terms of the academic standards of the awards it offers and the quality of the learning opportunities it provides for students.
3.2 The process for Annual Course Enhancement and Monitoring (ACEM) has been informed by: the QAA UK Quality Code, Advice and Guidance on Monitoring and Evaluation (2018); the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG 2015); and by the OfS Regulatory Framework for Higher Education in England (2022).
3.3 ACEM is a first process within the University’s internal quality framework, the means by which the University exercises its responsibility for quality and academic standards. ACEM applies to all courses taught at the University or franchised to collaborative partners. Monitoring and enhancement arrangements for validated provision are the responsibility of the delivering partner. They should be equivalent to and can be an adoption of the ACEM process, but this is not a requirement.
3.4 This section has been written for:
The University’s Academic Strategy
3.5 ACEM is the process through which the University demonstrates that the academic portfolio continues to achieve the ambitions of the University’s Education Strategy:
Ambition: The Education of the Future
Goal 1: Create and Sustain a Future-Facing Education that is Inclusive, Professionalised, and Multi-Disciplinary
Goal 2: Every Student’s Learning Experience Enables them to be Flexible, Professionalised, Enterprising, Ambitious for their own Future, Active in their own Learning, and Digitally Literate
Goal 3: All Staff in the University Community as a whole are Adept and Agile, Flexible, Ambitious, Comfortable with Accountability and Change, and Digitally Fluent
Goal 4: Our Research Activity Complements and Underpins our Teaching Priorities so that our Teaching is Truly Research-Rich, Innovative, Enterprising, and Always Current, and so that Students are able to Participate in Appropriate Research and Knowledge-Exchange Pursuits
Goal 5: Develop and Sustain Academic and Employer Partnerships that help Create and Sustain Globalised Mindsets, Enhance the Professionalised and Industry-Led Nature of our Curriculum, and Build our Capacity for Research with Impact
Goal 6: We will Develop and Strengthen our Systems and Processes to Ensure Efficient and Effective Ways of Working, Enable Continuous Improvement, and Support our High Academic Standards
3.6 Through ACEM courses are required to demonstrate that they continue to meet the criteria set out in the Education Strategy’s Goals 1, 2 and 4.
An enhancement-led approach
3.7 The purpose of the ACEM cycle is to evaluate courses on an annual basis and develop action plans to improve quality, enhance the student experience, and support achievement of consistently improved National Student Survey (NSS) results, that will then feed into improved outcomes (continuation, completion, and progression), and ultimately Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) Gold in 2026/27.
3.8 ACEM is underpinned by the concept of the timely consideration of relevant data inputs, leading to prompt intervention to address issues and to enhance provision.
3.9 The process is focused on action to enhance the learning opportunities available to students that enable them to meet the course outcomes. Course teams will be directed to use the data available to them to identify key enhancement goals, to plan carefully for and then work steadily towards their achievement.
3.10 ACEM is also designed to meet the needs of course teams to receive, consider and respond to the range of sources of data pertaining to the provision received during the year rather than waiting until the autumn to consider and plan a response to all the data received in the previous academic year. ACEM offers the significant advantage that students may benefit personally from a course team responding to feedback within the current academic year.
3.11 ACEM is an enhancement-led process and while the consideration of data leads to action to enhance the course; on its own this is more likely to result in incremental rather than transformational change. By requiring course teams to plan for and undertake an annual larger scale enhancement event or activity, usually towards the
end of the academic year, ACEM empowers course teams to reflect upon where they are and to plan for a leap forward.
3.12 At each point in the cycle course teams will consider what it is that would take the course from being satisfactory/good/great to being good/great/outstanding. The answer/s to this question will be reported in the Course Action Plan to inform the ongoing ACEM process.
3.13 Externality: Externality within ACEM is provided by the External Examiner (EE). Within their reports EEs are asked to comment on academic standards, course currency, student achievement, and the quality of learning opportunities. EE reports are one of the sources of information that form the evidence base for ACEM. In addition to the externality provided by EEs, on some courses further externality will be provided by PSRB reports.
3.14 The ACEM Cycle has five steps:
September:
Courses given a Course Average Score (CAS) and then a RAG rating, based on NSS results.
September/October:
Course teams develop action plans, using other relevant data and inputs, engaging with stakeholders.
October:
Course Enhancement Meeting 1
February
Course Enhancement Meeting 2
June
End of year Evaluation
3.15 NSS results are released annually during the summer. Once released, the four NSS metrics used by the Times Higher to determine Teaching Quality will be used to create a Course Average Score (CAS) for each course. The four NSS metrics that make up the Times Higher Teaching Quality are:
3.16 The CAS for each course will be RAG rated based on the following criteria:
3.17 Where NSS metrics are not available Annual Course Evaluation (ACE) Survey teaching quality metrics will be used to calculate the CAS. Where NSS and ACE Survey metrics are not available the CAS will be blank and the academic course will be shaded a pale red. RAG Ratings, NSS Teaching Quality and ACE Overall Score will be circulated to ACLs via the ACEM Dashboard in August.
3.18 A single Action Plan should be created for each academic course, at undergraduate and postgraduate level. The Action Plan should be completed by the ACL in conjunction with the course team. Where a Collaborative Partner offers a franchised UoG course, the UoG ACL must also consider this provision within the action plan for the course. Other stakeholders should also be consulted, where relevant, for example:
3.19 The latest NSS results and internal CAS RAG Rating should form the basis of the Action Plan. Additional sources of information, which may inform the Action Plan and Course Enhancement Meetings (CEMs), are:
3.20 The ACEM Action Plan Template has seven sections:
i. Course Information
ii. Priorities and Actions (2 to 4 Priorities)
iii. Sharing Good Practice
iv. Support Required
v. Approval – Action Plan
vi. End of Year Evaluation
vii. Approval – End of Year Evaluation
Sections i to iv of the Action Plan should be completed before the first Course Enhancement Meeting in October so they can be reviewed during that meeting.
Section vi of the Action Plan should be completed in June.
i. Course Information should contain the following information:
ii. Priorities and Actions should identify key priority areas for enhancement (e.g. teaching, learning opportunities, assessment and feedback, academic support, course organisation and management, other), along with associated SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) actions. Priorities can be added/deleted as needed, and should be manageable to action over the year.
At the October and February Course Enhancement Meetings progress towards success criteria against the actions for each area of enhancement should be included in the relevant boxes.
iii. Sharing Good Practice should identify elements of good practice, their positive impact on the student experience, and set out how they will be shared across the School and wider University.
iv. Support Required should list any training or support required from AQEI or other Professional Service to support course enhancement.
v. Approval – Action Plan should contain the following information:
The finalised Action Plan should be signed off by the HoS or AHoS QSS.
Action Plans should then be saved in the relevant area of the Annual Course Enhancement and Monitoring Teams site.
vi. End of Year Evaluation should reflect on progress over the past year and identify key priority areas for enhancement to continue into the next year.
vii. Approval – End of Year Evaluation should contain the following information:
3.21 CEMs will take place in October and February. The October CEM will review and approve the Action Plan. The February CEM will review progress against the Action Plan and incorporate the latest data on course enhancement. Engagement with stakeholders should be reflected on, including the student voice through the Course Representatives and Student Voice Assistants, and any discussions with industry or PSRBs.
3.22 The End of Year Evaluation will take place in June. It will review progress and impact against each priority area for enhancement in the Action Plan and identify priorities to continue into the next academic year.
3.23 The outcomes of ACEM will be discussed with collaborative partners through Partnership Boards.
3.24 The report containing the final set of ACEM outcomes for the institution will be presented to AAC. This report will identify any key themes for institutional development including any good practice that requires further dissemination.
3.25 This report on ACEM will become part of the Annual Assurance Statement on the operation and outcomes of the University’s Enhancement Framework that will be presented annually to Academic Board. This report will also inform the Annual Business Review.
3.26 The annual AAC report on the operation and outcomes of the University’s Enhancement Framework will be submitted to University Council as part of the wider reporting that will ensure Council have the oversight they require of the operation of the University’s arrangements for the assurance of academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities offered to students.
3.27 The DAQEI will identify institutional enhancement themes arising from ACEM and will be responsible for the development of an action plan reflecting various means of addressing these (e.g. the provision of reusable learning objects and other staff development activity). AAC will have oversight of this action plan.
4.1 The UK higher education system is based on the principle of the autonomy and responsibility of the degree-awarding body in terms of the academic standards of the awards it offers and the quality of the learning opportunities it provides for students.
4.2 The process for the periodic review of schools has been informed by the QAA UK Quality Code, Advice and Guidance on Monitoring and Evaluation.
4.3 The UK Quality Code recognises that periodic review may happen at a number of levels. The University has identified continuous monitoring and improvement as a fundamental element of its Learning Design principles. As this is articulated through the ACEM process for courses (see Section 3), the University has chosen to implement a periodic review process at the level of the School.
4.4 This section is also informed by both the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG 2015) and the OfS Regulatory Framework for Higher Education in England (2022).
4.5 This section has been written for:
The University’s Corporate and Education Strategies
4.6 Periodic Review of Schools has been designed to ensure that all aspects of School business are aligned with the University’s mission, Strategic Plan, Corporate and Education strategies. The ambition articulated in the Education Strategy has six goals:
Goal 1: Create and sustain a future-facing education that is inclusive, professionalised, and multi-disciplinary.
Goal 2: Every student’s learning experience enables them to be flexible, professionalised, enterprising, ambitious for their own future, active in their own learning, and digitally literate.
Goal 3: All staff in the university community as a whole are adept and agile, flexible, ambitious, comfortable with accountability and change, and digitally fluent.
Goal 4: Our research activity complements and underpins our teaching priorities so that our teaching is truly research-rich, innovative, enterprising, and always current, and so that students are able to participate in appropriate research and knowledge-exchange pursuit.
Goal 5: Develop and sustain academic and employer partnerships that help create and sustain globalised mindsets, enhance the professionalised and industry-led nature of our curriculum, and build our capacity for research with impact.
Goal 6: We will develop and strengthen our systems and processes to ensure efficient and effective ways of working, enable continuous improvement, and support our high academic standards.
4.7 The Education Strategy provides guidance and focus for all academic activity to ensure it actively contributes to the goals set out in the University’s Strategic Plan 2022-27:
4.8 In this way the Education Strategy ensures that the University’s academic endeavour contributes directly to the University’s Mission – ‘Founded on values, centred on students, focused on learning’ – and Vision – ‘Changing your world so that you can change ours’ – more fully articulated within the three statements below:
4.9 The implementation of a risk management approach: A detailed risk assessment informs the development of the briefing document for the Periodic Review and so from the outset the Periodic Review Panel is focused on areas of specific risk and opportunity for the School that need to be addressed by the review process. This document will be used to inform:
a. The selection of the key focus areas for the Periodic Review of the School.
b. Decisions around the role and focus of the external academic(s) contributing to the Review.
c. Decisions around other external and internal membership of the Periodic Review Panel.
d. Preparatory work that needs to be undertaken prior to the Periodic Review Event.
4.10 The Periodic Review culminates in a set of recommendations. The recommendations are submitted to AAC for consideration and if approved the School develops an action plan for the implementation of the recommendations. This is updated regularly and AAC monitors progress. The outcomes of Periodic Review not only enable a clearer understanding of events in the past but will engender a much greater understanding of the capacity, capability and resilience of the School to manage different aspects of its business going forward. This information builds institutional learning in relation to the mitigation of risk and the development of increased capability and resilience within Schools and the wider University.
4.11 An enhancement-led approach: The Periodic Review will culminate in a set of recommendations and will identify areas for the professional development of the staff team within the School. In this way the Review empowers those within the School to address identified risks or potential threats to the work of a School, where necessary allocating additional targeted resource to support and facilitate this learning.
4.12 Externality: In order to be transparent and publicly accountable, the Periodic Review of Schools process makes careful use of external academic and professional expertise through the appointment of external panel members and through enabling the views of external stakeholders (e.g. External Examiners, employers, PSRB representatives) to inform the Review process. In addition, drawing on colleagues from across the University to act as internal panel members provides a useful opportunity for institutional learning and the sharing of good practice.
4.13 The purpose of the Periodic Review is to help a School to reflect on and learn from the previous cycle; to identify key priorities and challenges and to agree how these should be addressed. Potential focus areas include:
a. The external environment within which the School is operating.
b. The management and leadership of the School.
c. The School’s key areas of business, e.g. the academic portfolio, teaching, research, consultancy, collaborative provision, international students.
d. Teaching, learning and assessment.
e. Work with professional departments: e.g. CMSR, Estates, Libraries, IT Services, AQEI, and Academic Registry.
f. The alignment and engagement of the School with the University’s internal priorities, e.g. the Education Strategy, Student Futures, Graduate Outcomes, Personal Tutor Scheme.
g. Student engagement, achievement, progression and destination.
h. Staffing: appointment, development and scholarly activity.
4.14
Planning preparation for the Periodic Review of a School
Pre-meeting: confirming key themes / lead person and focus for each meeting. (AQEI provide the officer who organises the event including inviting panel members but the School takes responsibility for inviting internal colleagues who are not panel members to specific meetings).
…
The event
Meeting with School Management Team: HoS, DHoS, AHoS, Senior Tutor, Leads for Research, Teaching & Learning, International, Consultancy, Partnerships.
…
Panel Meeting: thoughts and reflections – feeding into subsequent meetings.
…
Themed Meeting(s): One or more meetings with a particular group (e.g. ACLs, student representatives, cognate courses) and/or particular focus (e.g. Collaborative Partnerships, Research and Pedagogy).
…
Panel Meeting: thoughts and reflections. Formulating the recommendations.
…
After the event
Verbal feedback to the School Management Team.
…
Recommendations are submitted to AAC.
4.15 Periodic Review of Schools operates on a regular cycle but the risk management approach may identify the need for a School to undergo Periodic Review within a shorter timeframe. A schedule for the review of Schools is drawn up so that HoS know in good time when their review is due.
4.16 A Periodic Review of Schools planning document template is provided which, on completion, will contain all the arrangements and deadlines for the Review and is submitted as a draft document to AAC for approval.
4.17 The administrative arrangements will be undertaken by the officer from AQEI.
4.18 A Chair for the Review will be appointed by DAQEI and University Executive Committee (UEC).
4.19 The Chair, in consultation with UEC, is responsible for the appointment of the Panel, including the appointment of one or more academic External Panel Members (EPMs) with suitable senior experience and relevant discipline knowledge. Usually the Panel membership will include:
4.20 Consideration should be given to the appointment of additional internal and external panel members to reflect the focus of the review.
4.21 A meeting will take place between the Chair of the Panel, the DAQEI and the HoS due to undergo Periodic Review to confirm the scope of the Review and what meetings are required. If possible the EPMs will join the meeting either in person or remotely. If not, the Chair of the Panel will need to brief the EPMs after the meeting. This meeting will usually take place about four weeks prior to the Review.
4.22 The Chair of the Panel provides a detailed planning brief to include: a list of any further preparatory work needed; the meetings they wish to have during the Review; a list of the names of those required to attend the meetings; and also any specific evidence required for the Review in addition to the standard overview document with links to the set of information and data.
4.23 EPMs are briefed by the Chair and then given access to the information and data they require so that they can undertake their preparatory work.
4.24 The officer circulates an electronic agenda and any papers for the event 10 working days prior to the Review.
4.25 The HoS is responsible for coordinating the invites to the attendees for each meeting.
4.26 The Periodic Review of School event opens with a meeting of the Panel to confirm the process for the Review and the focus of each meeting. The pattern of meetings for the event comprises meetings with different groups followed by Panel meetings.
4.27 The focus of each meeting and possibly the number of meetings will depend upon the agreed areas for discussion.
4.28 After the final meeting the Periodic Review Panel may choose to provide some brief verbal feedback to the HoS and members of the team.
4.29 The record of the event will be the minutes of each meeting and the set of recommendations agreed by the Panel.
4.30 The HoS is invited to comment on the draft recommendations before they are confirmed, and presented to AAC. Once a set of recommendations are approved by AAC the HoS is asked to draw up an action plan for the implementation of the recommendations and progress made in relation to this work is overseen by AAC.
4.31 Once the recommendations are approved by AAC the HoS presents them to the School Management meeting where they inform the cycle of School planning and development.
4.32 AAC identifies any key themes for institutional development to be progressed by the DAQEI who also oversees the dissemination of good practice identified within the School during the Periodic Review process.
5.1 As a Degree Awarding Body (DAB) the University is responsible for setting and maintaining academic standards and assuring and enhancing the quality of learning opportunities in relation to all course design, development and approval activity. This responsibility relates to all the University’s awards including those validated for collaborative partners.
5.2 The approval of new partnerships and the review of existing partnerships provide opportunities to appraise any partnership to ensure that the University is assured of the academic and quality assurance standards at the partner institution, as well as considering operational matters. As such, a range of University departments, including Schools, AQEI and External Relationships, contribute to these processes.
5.3 This section of the framework has been informed by the key practice in the 2024 Quality Code: ‘Where academic provision is delivered through partnership, all partners agree, understand, communicate and take responsibility for the maintenance of academic standards and enhancement of quality.’
5.4 This section has been written:
5.5 This section covers:
5.6 In line with the University’s approach to the management of risk the following processes have been designed to be applied flexibly. This approach considers past performance of the School and partner (the provider), the competence of the provider going forward, and the present operating context of the partnership.
5.7 At various times, levels of risk are assessed for the course or partner. ACEM provides RAG-rated risk data to course teams. AHoS and HoS will draw upon this information for School Continuous Review meetings.
5.8 The Partner is required to provide a range of information (see the ACEM Report Template for Collaborative Partners) and data (e.g. National Student Survey [NSS], annual student evaluation outcomes, Graduate Outcomes). This information and data will inform the ACEM process.
5.9 Appendix 4.A provides information of the Categorisation of Collaborative Partnerships, with level one typically presenting a lower level of risk than a level seven arrangement. It is acknowledged that these categories merely provide easily identifiable ‘standard’ activity and a risk management approach will be taken with activity that falls between categories. The approval and monitoring of activity is undertaken using an approach that is consistent with the level of risk.
5.10 For each course delivered by a partner organisation the University needs to confirm that the partner has the resources (both physical and human) to deliver specific provision. In addition, the University requires confirmation that the host School has the capacity to manage its responsibilities for quality assurance and enhancement. The Delivery Approval Process enables these assurances to be gained.
5.11 Once ULG gives approval for a partner to deliver specific course/s, a Delivery Approval event is organised, reporting with Conditions, Recommendations and Commendations which are submitted to AAC for assurance.
5.12 The Delivery Approval process assesses the partner’s ability to delivery specific courses at a specific location. As such, the University appraises the partner’s capacity to deliver each course in terms of appropriate staffing, learning resources, student support, and learning and social facilities. The process further explores the capacity of the School to support the development and confirms the operational activities to facilitate the delivery of the course.
5.13 For new partnerships offering franchise provision, or for existing partnerships offering additional franchise provision, a Delivery Approval event will be required. Reports and recommendations are submitted to AAC for approval.
5.14 For new partnerships offering validated provision, or for existing partnerships offering additional validated provision, the Delivery Approval event is carried out at the same time as the validation of the new award. A separate Partnership Approval event will be held prior to any validation or delivery approval events. Reports and recommendations are submitted to AAC for approval.
5.15 For additional sites for delivery with an existing partner a Location of Delivery Report is compiled by the ALT/ACL and submitted to AAC to for assurance.
5.16 ACEM (see section 3 for details), the University’s process for reviewing courses, applies to all franchise provision. Partners delivering validated courses are responsible for their own quality assurance reviews. These should be equivalent to ACEM, and might involve adoption of the ACEM model. The review process is key for ensuring excellent student and teaching experience, driving student attainment and satisfaction, and empowering teams to deliver course enhancement.
Collaborative Partner ACEM Guidance
Collaborative Partner ACEM Cycle Schedule
Collaborative Partner ACEM Glossary
Collaborative Partner ACEM/ABR Data Report Template
5.17 Annual Partnership Review (APR) is carried out to provide an institutional context for the oversight of individual partner courses. It informs the University of any significant developments within the partner institution and allows for a discussion about potential additional developments within the partnership. It evaluates the operation of the partnership, the quality of provision, and provides a formal means by which there is a mutual exchange on generic matters affecting the partnership.
5.18 ALTs play a specific role in liaison with validated provision collaborative partners. This role is mentioned throughout this Quality Framework and additional information about the role is detailed in the ALT Handbook. For partners with franchise provision, liaison will lie with the UoG ACL and Module Tutors working with their counterparts at the Partner.
5.19 School leadership teams have operational oversight of the work of ALTs within specific partnerships, providing continuous central support and guidance for these roles operating ‘in the field’ as well as working closely with Registry and School Administration colleagues to ensure effective local administrative support for collaborative activities.
5.20 ALTs are academic colleagues who are appointed by the School to provide support and guidance to a partner at a subject level for validated provision. The main role of the ALT is to support the academic delivery of collaborative provision offered through partners to ensure that standards and quality are maintained; and that the partner’s course team are working in accordance with University policy and procedure.
5.21 The decision to terminate a partnership may be taken by the University or by a collaborative partner. Partnership termination should always be carried out in line with the terms of the Partnership Agreement. Where such termination involves the closure and teaching out of courses, the School will ensure that the required processes are followed, in line with the University’s Student Protection Plan to Protect Continuation of Study. (See section 2.19.)
Every new proposal will be required to demonstrate that it is aligned to the University’s commitment to ‘create and sustain a future-facing education that is inclusive, professionalised, and multi-disciplinary’ (goal 1 of the Education Strategy).
a. By future-facing, we mean a continuing alertness to the needs and requirements of professions that are themselves continually self-assessing – but also challenging ourselves and all our subjects to push against convention and tradition: to offer the Education of the Future.
b. ‘Inclusive’ means that our pedagogy will reflect our understanding of the individuality of students and their capacity to contribute in interesting and globally-relevant ways to their learning experience. This entails going beyond the transactional (e.g. student feedback), although this is certainly a part of it. More importantly, it means proactive engagement with students to secure their participation in module, course and assessment design along with regular stock-takes. This can happen at various levels; what is key is that students become active partners in appropriate ways.
c. This contributes to integrating a professionalised identity into every course and enlisting our students as active agents in this. This creates an environment in which students increasingly see themselves as professionals in training, taking from their courses not only subject knowledge but the competencies and behaviours they need to progress to professional careers, and to continue to develop their careers thereafter.
d. Multi-disciplinarity, like inclusivity, can take a multitude of forms; it might also be seen as ‘multi-perspectival’. Not every course is able to accommodate subject-driven multi-disciplinarity; however, via work around Your Future Plan and Education for Sustainability, for instance, every student should have the opportunity to think outside the strict parameters of their course, in order to prepare for a future that may take them in unexpected directions.
NB: The NCA process should be informed by prior conversations between the School/Course Developer and key professional services (Estates, Libraries, IT Services, Student Futures, CMSR, Finance & Planning). It does not replace the need for such conversations.
There is no fixed timescale for the process, but it is advisable to consider AAC meeting dates when planning. A proposal should be ready for inclusion on the AAC agenda two weeks prior to the meeting. Allow sufficient time for professional services staff to review and contribute to the proposal.
Overview Document
Appendices
In addition, for courses that are to become the knowledge award for an apprenticeship only
To be successfully validated a course must:
Development teams should use the External Consultant Appointment Form to propose appointment of an external consultant. Once approved, the external consultant should provide their evaluation of the new course on the External Consultant Report Form. The Report Form and the development team’s response should be included in the validation
documentation.
The external consultant should comment on:
Modifications fall into three categories (see the Modifications guidance document):
A. Minor Module Modification: School approval without the need for external examiner or student consultation.
E.g. changes to module indicative resources, brief description, indicative syllabus, learning and teaching activities, module tutor.
B. Major Module Modification: School approval with the need for EE and student consultation.
Where the award title remains appropriate, the resources agreed during the original development remain appropriate, and the impact of the proposed changes on existing students or current applicants is not significant (i.e. it is not a material change to the course unless the proposed change is urgent and unavoidable), changes that may be undertaken as modifications include:
C. Course Level Modification: requiring submission of a modification form and documentation to VSP, and the need for EE and student consultation.
For example:
The VSP form requires:
The validation process must be used when the proposed changes to an existing course are significant* and will result in a material change to the course to the extent that one or more of the following apply:
*It is not possible to provide a formulaic definition of what constitutes ‘significant’ change. This will depend both upon the nature of the course and the nature of the modules being added or removed. The evaluation of what is considered significant cumulative and/or step change is based on a consensus of academic judgement and will differ depending on the type of programme, subject area, professional body, mode of delivery, etc.
Level 1: School-based training, clinical and other placements; overseas student exchanges
Within this category the University may delegate to a partner organisation such as a school or hospital limited responsibility for student learning and assessment. Also included within this category are student exchanges managed in collaboration with overseas HE providers, e.g. via the Erasmus programme. The approval and monitoring of this activity is delegated to the ACL within the context of the course and the overall School.
Level 2: Outreach Learning Venues
Within this category University staff or approved University Partners are fully responsible for delivering UoG provision and supporting students at an external venue. (This excludes any UoG campuses or Partner approved delivery locations.) These venues are not the students’ main study base as students will have approved support and learning facilities either online or at a specific approved venue as confirmed at the validation or delivery approval. These venues are only to enhance existing delivery and will generally be ad hoc short-term opportunities. The approval and monitoring of this activity is delegated to the ACL within the context of the course and the overall School.
Level 3: Outreach Supported Learning Centres (‘Flying Faculty’ provision)
Within this category University staff are responsible for delivering UoG provision at an external venue (this could be a Further Education College, a private UK college, overseas college, or similar), but the partner has some delegated/agreed responsibilities for facilities and for providing learning support and/or student services. The approval and monitoring of this activity is shared between External Relationships at a partnership level and the ALT/ACL within the context of the course and the overall School. Approval of these partnerships is required through AAC on behalf of Academic Board.
Level 4: Articulation Agreements
Within this category the University recognises and grants credit exemption to students completing a named programme of study of another awarding body to enable their progression to a UoG Home programme at a point other than its normal start (‘entry with advanced standing’). In this particular context, articulation agreements are, for example, likely to be with overseas institutions or UK private providers or an awarding body that wishes their certificate or diploma students to progress to entry with advanced standing onto a UoG award.
Additionally, Articulation is seen as the process by which qualifications studied at particular organisations or approved by a specific awarding body are used as an entry requirement for the usual starting point of an award. Articulation is used when a number of students will be applying with the same entry requirements from a specific awarding body/institution and not for individual claims for APL.
The approval and monitoring of this activity is shared between UK or International Recruitment, External Relationships at a partnership level, and the ALT/ACL within the context of the course and the overall School. Approval of these agreements is required through AAC on behalf of Academic Board.
Level 5: Franchised provision leading to an academic award or credit
Within this category the University franchises its own modules or programmes for delivery by another organisation. The approval and monitoring of this activity is shared between the External Relationships at a partnership level and the ACL/MT within the context of the course and the overall School. Approval of these partnerships is required through UEC/ALG. AAC will provide assurance post an approval event.
Level 6: Validated provision leading to an academic award or credit
Within this category the University validates a complete programme of study or parts thereof, developed or designed by another organisation (or in collaboration with UoG) for delivery by that organisation. The approval and monitoring of this activity is shared between External Relationships at a partnership level and the ALT/ACL within the context of the Course and the overall School. Approval of these partnerships is required through AAC on behalf of Academic Board.
Level 7: Joint Venture (Risk level dependent on specific agreement)
This category relates to a contractual relationship where the University would pool resources and expertise with one (or more) organisations to work together on a particular project or initiative. University Executive and Council approval is required for these developments.
| Section/s | Amendment |
| 5, 1.19-20 | Removal of sections about the operational business of collaborative partnerships |
| 3.3, 3.18, 5.16 | Removal of the requirement for validated partnership courses to use ACEM |
| 2.19, 5.21 | Addition of a section on course closures |
| 1.14, 2.9 | Additional points about the importance of the student voice |
| App. 2.D | Inclusion of PSRB accreditation in validation documentation |
| 2.12b | Comment on need for partner market analysis in collaborative NCA proposals |
| App. 2.B | Comment on need for discussions with professional services prior to starting NCA |
| 2.6 | Comment on the timeframe for development and validation after NCA approval |
| passim | Updated references to the Quality Code (2024 vs 2018) |
| passim | Updated terminology for professional services roles and departments |
| passim | Renumbering of sections because of above changes |
| Approved by AAC, October 2024 | |
| Next scheduled review: June 2025 | |
; ?> "Visit the homepage"){kind=logo}