University College Dublin

Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement

Peer Review Group Report

School of Diagnostic Imaging

Academic Year 2003/2004 APRIL 2004

2 Table of Contents

Members of the Review Group

1. The Department

1.1 Location of the Department 4 1.2 Staff 5 1.3 Courses and Programmes 5

2. The Departmental Self-Assessment

2.1 The Co-ordinating Committee 7 2.2 Methodology adopted by the School’s Co-ordinating Committee 7

3. The Site Visit

3.1 Timetable 9 3.2 Methodology of the Peer Review Group 10 3.3 General Comments 11

4. The Peer Review

4.1 Methodology of the PRG Report 12 4.2 Peer Review Group's View of the Self-assessment Report 12

5. Findings of the Peer Review Group

5.1 Departmental Details 13 5.2 Department Planning and Organisation 13 5.3 Taught Programmes 16 5.4 Teaching and Learning 19 5.5 Research and Scholarly Activity 20 5.6 External Relations 21 5.7 Support Services 22

6. Overall Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Concerns 23

7. Recommendations for Improvement 27

8. Response by the Departmental Co-ordinating Committee to the Peer Review Group Report 29

3 Members of the Peer Review Group

NAME AFFILIATION ROLE

Dr Vera Čapková Former Head, Department of Linguistics Chair University College Dublin

Dr Geraldine O’Neill Head, Centre for Teaching and Learning Rapporteur University College Dublin

Professor Peter Dervan Head, Department of Pathology Cognate University College Dublin

Ms Gill Marshall St Martin’s College, Lancaster, UK Extern

Mr Graham Morgan Kingston University, London, UK Extern

4 1. THE DEPARTMENT

1.1 Location of the Department

The School commented in their Self-assessment Report that the current premises were created by refurbishment of a derelict Children’s Hospital, with an ongoing class size of twenty planned. This assumption has long since been overtaken, not only by student numbers, but also by development of teaching and learning styles and increased focus on student-centred and problem-based learning. There are three classrooms, with a layout compromised by the fact the building was not purpose built, but reasonable AV facilities. These seat 44, 24, and 20 respectively, and will not accommodate even undergraduate student numbers after September 2006.

The School is an old building, and although well refurbished, retains elements of the original heating system. In summer, the classrooms on the southern aspect are stifling. In winter, the whole upper floor is freezing: temperatures of 11oC and less have been measured for days at a time in some staff offices. When the heating is turned up in winter to take the ice off the upper floor, the ground floor offices become like saunas, and the radiators cannot be turned off. The School have made countless appeals to St. Vincent's Hospital Works Department to have this situation remedied, and they have made good efforts, but have been promising supplementary oil filled radiators for several years that have not yet materialised: apparently the electrical circuit cannot support the additional load. There is one more summer and winter in this building before the long awaited move to Belfield. The School felt it would be a useful achievement of the Quality Review Process to get a decent working temperature for the year that remains in the building.

Current classrooms are too small, and poorly arranged in terms of the ergonomics of teaching. The absence of any technical or support services staff creates many difficulties in maintaining AV facilities.

Undergraduate and postgraduate students make use of an open access computer facility with eight terminals in the School and can use many more all over the main University campus. The School terminals are supported on request by the single Computing Services staff member assigned to St. Vincent’s Hospital. The number of terminals is insufficient and the support person is very busy and hence stretched to provide assistance. Current arrangements for printing and photocopying are student friendly and accessible, it is important that this is not lost in transition to the new facility. Student social facilities are limited: there is a common room and small kitchen area.

The clinical demonstration room is archaic, having been transferred from the previous building. Currently, and since December 2003, the X-ray tube is beyond economical repair, and hence students have to undertake practical assignments in hospital X-ray rooms, whenever these latter can be vacated. Evaluation questionnaires show that staff and students alike consider the current lack of facilities in the clinical demonstration room as a major hindrance to learning and research. The high capital cost of X-ray equipment has precluded its replacement in this educational environment on the desirable regular basis. On- site annealing and calibration of thermoluminescent dosemeters is possible with a Toledo 654 dosemeter that was donated by St. Vincent’s Hospital. This

5 currently is fully functional, but rendered almost useless as a result of the X-ray tube breakdown.

HEA capital equipment grants and overseas income have resulted in the acquisition of two tissue equivalent radiographic phantoms: a whole body Rando anthropomorphic phantom for dosimetry, and a Pixie phantom for anatomical reproduction. Such phantoms have been pivotal to the development of our research activity, and will soon be supplemented by a range of paediatric phantoms to be purchased under a Health Research Board grant award.

The processing area is reasonable. It houses an automatic X-ray film processor, a Kodak X-Omat 3000RA. Accessory facilities to support film processing include a Gevamatic silver recovery unit, a Kodak automatic mixer, a film and chemical store and manual processing equipment. Appropriate fume ventilation and disposal systems are in place to ensure high health and safety standards. Enlargement facilities (AICO enlarger) for 35 mm photography are also in place. That said, current clinical practice also utilises digital image acquisition and processing, and lack of such facilities is an obvious deficiency in the current teaching environment.

Resources for hands-on teaching of Computed Radiography, Digital Radiography, Ultrasound, Computed Tomography, Radionuclide Imaging, Mammography and Magnetic Resonance are non existent.

1.2 Staff

The staff complement of posts at January 2004 was nine full-time permanent and one full-time temporary teaching staff consisting of two Senior Lecturers, six Lecturers and one Assistant Lecturer. A maternity locum lecturer was temporarily replacing one of the full-time permanent lecturers. Administrative staff is made up of one Senior Executive Assistant and one Executive Assistant. One temporary Research Assistant and one temporary Demonstrator are also on staff.

The School currently has no part-time positions, and no technical support staff. More importantly, there is no Professor of Diagnostic Imaging, leaving the School the only School in the Faculty of Medicine without a Chair.

1.3 Courses and Programmes

Current programmes include:

BSc (Radiography) – a four-year, professionally accredited Honours degree with academic and clinical components.

Taught MSc (Diagnostic Imaging or Related Subject) – Five taught modular MSc programmes are offered in the areas of Ultrasound, Computerised Tomography, Radionuclide Imaging, Breast Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Each programme has academic and clinical components and develops clinical competence as well as postgraduate academic enquiry.

Research MSc/PhD - The School has developed the capacity to supervise ten to fifteen postgraduate research students within a semi-structured environment

6 where time-frames for research and expectations of supervisors and students are being synchronised. Currently, there are five MSc and two PhD research students registered, all of whom are undertaking research relevant to clinical Diagnostic Imaging departments.

Additionally each year, an active and dynamic Ongoing Education programme is offered to qualified Radiographers nationally to facilitate their continuing professional development. Typically comprising six to eight courses, topics are chosen to represent issues of current clinical interest, and as such the programme varies year on year. The courses are run on a break even financial basis, and as occasional, once-off programmes, are essentially outside of University structures per se.

In collaboration with the Dublin Dental Hospital, Trinity College Dublin, the School offers a radiography course aimed at producing Dental Nurses / Surgery Assistants who are competent in a limited number of X-ray examinations. The annual course spans four months. In addition, staff are involved in teaching Radiography to Second Year Dentistry students, also in TCD.

Radiation Protection study days are offered annually to non-radiological doctors and nurses, thus enabling these professionals to conform to legislative requirements concerning use of medical radiation.

7 2. THE DEPARTMENTAL SELF-ASSESSMENT

2.1 The Co-ordinating Committee

The School of Diagnostic Imaging has ten academic and two administrative staff. Staff meetings are held weekly. Within this structure, the School decided at the start of the QA/QI process to include all of the staff in the Departmental QA/QI Co- ordinating Committee, since quality issues were discussed at routine staff meetings.

Since Quality Assurance issues became embedded in the fabric of staff meeting agendas, issues were discussed under the chairmanship of different members of staff at different times. The full membership was:

1. Kate Matthews Senior Lecturer, Director of School, Course Leader for BSc degree, Overall Chair for QA/QI

2. Patrick Brennan Senior Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Research

3. Majella McCaffrey Lecturer, Acting Director of Taught Postgraduate Courses, Course Leader for Ultrasound

4. Mark McEntee Assistant Lecturer, Recruitment co-ordinator, Web page editor, Computer Policy co-ordinator

5. Allison McGee Lecturer, Course Leader for Magnetic Resonance Imaging

6. Caroline Maguire Lecturer, Protocols/recruitment/open day responsibilities

7. Geraldine O’Connor Lecturer, Co-ordinator First and Second Radiography

8. Desiree O’Leary Lecturer, Erasmus Co-ordinator, Course Leader for Breast Imaging

9. Louise Rainford Lecturer, Clinical Co-ordinator, Course co-ordinator for Radionuclide Imaging

10. Edel Shortt Lecturer, Course Leader for Computed Tomography

11. Niamh McCarthy Senior Executive Assistant

12. Anne Hegarty Executive Assistant

2.2 Methodology Adopted by the School’s Co-ordinating Committee

Following an initial planning forum the staff of the School of Diagnostic Imaging agreed the strategic approach to the review. Although quality issues were discussed at approximately 30 weekly meetings the Quality Review was largely ignored under pressure of other work. There was only one meeting with the facilitators in February 2004. Minutes of all meetings were made available in the School.

8 Generally, the person who was responsible for a particular field of activity was also responsible for gathering and assimilating data in that area. Each identified quality issue was brought to the table for discussion several times.

Since all staff were involved in the quality discussions, communication between staff was not an issue. Communication with the student member of the committee was poor. By the time staff attention had focussed on the review, the student was on an Erasmus exchange. Given the various student comments about involvement and approachability of staff in the evaluation questionnaires, student participation needs to be prioritised in the next Quality Review. Questionnaires from the Quality Assurance (QA) office website were downloaded and customised to reflect the range and type of activity of the School. Data was collected from Undergraduate students, Taught Postgraduate students, Research students, Academic staff, Administrative staff and Service Managers. No recent course graduates were surveyed, an oversight not noticed until writing up the Self- assessment Report (SAR). The guidelines on structure of the Self-assessment Report were followed except:  Inclusion of an extra chapter with a series of quality statements and policies for all their activities. These were developed during QA/QI discussions as a series of benchmarks against which to audit future practice;  Each segment of the taught programmes was presented in a distinct chapter, since the Co-ordinating Committee believed the rationale and approach to each was quite separate.

9 3. THE SITE VISIT

3.1 Timetable

Tuesday, 30 March 2004

17.30 PRG meet at Hotel 20.00 Dinner hosted by Registrar and Vice-President for Academic Affairs

Wednesday, 31 March 2004

Venue: Staff Conference Room, School of Diagnostic Imaging 09.00-10.00 PRG met 10.00-11.30 PRG met with Co-ordinating Committee 11.30-12.30 PRG met Head of Department 12.30-14.30 Working lunch, PRG only 14.30-16.00 PRG met with academic staff 16.00-16.30 Coffee break 16.30-17.15 PRG met with administrative staff 17.15-18.00 PRG viewed facilities of the Department 19.30 p.m. PRG only, working dinner in hotel

Thursday, 1 April 2004

Venue: Staff Conference Room, School of Diagnostic Imaging 09.30-10.00 PRG met, Lecture Hall, Education and Research Centre, SVUH 10.00-11.00 PRG met with postgraduate students, Lecture Hall, Education and Research Centre, SVUH 11.00-11.30 Coffee, Lecture Hall, Education and Research Centre, SVUH 11.30-1.00 PRG met with undergraduate students, Lecture Hall, Education and Research Centre, SVUH [Students brought SU representatives with them] 13.00-14.30 Working lunch, PRG only 14.30–14.45 PRG met with Research Assistants (two postgraduate students through research only) 14.45-16.00 PRG available for private individual staff meetings 16.00-16.30 PRG met Dean of Medicine 15.15-18.00 PRG available for private individual staff meetings 19.30 p.m. PRG only, working dinner in hotel

10 Friday, 2 April 2004

Venue: Staff Conference Room, School of Diagnostic Imaging 09.00-09.30 PRG met with undergraduate student representatives 09.30-09.50 PRG met with employer of graduates 10.00-11.30 PRG available for private individual staff meetings 11.30-13.00 PRG worked on PRG report 13.00-14.30 Working lunch, PRG only 14.30-15.30 PRG worked on PRG report 15.30-16.00 PRG met Head of Department 16.00 –17.00 Presentation by PRG to all Department staff 17.00 PRG and Department reception

3.2 Methodology of the Peer Review Group

Dr Vera Čapková chaired the Peer Review Group for the site visit, which occurred over a three-day period. The timetable was set between School and the Quality Assurance Office. There were some changes to the timetable during the course of the visit. The Dean’s visit was re-scheduled to the second day of the Site Visit due to organisational issues. One employer (Radiographer) was available to meet with the reviewers on the final day.

There were two extra pages made available to the reviewers, from the staff, on the first day of the visit. This was a more focused SWOT analysis, summarised from issues already mentioned in the SAR. It was completed after the SAR was submitted and had been composed by three or four staff and shown to all staff in a staff meeting.

The first task of the review group (all five members) was to meet with the Co- ordinating Committee of the self-assessment, which was in this case the full staff complement. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the process experienced by the staff in composing the self-assessment.

The staff admitted that they neglected the writing of the SAR at an early stage and that the process was very rushed at the end. They also acknowledged that they had not taken advantage of the facilitators. Although preparing for three years, they left the data collection and report writing very late and this they described was due to work overload. They did not organise a staff day out, but considered that this might still be useful. It was evident from the document that a huge amount of work was put into its composition and collation. Staff commented on the usefulness of the process in gaining insight into the complete course.

The PRG met the staff as a group later in the first day, to discuss issues related to the content of the SAR. The results of this are described under the different sections. In addition the PRG met with the Head of School for an overview of the policies and strategies in the School. There were some initial clarifications made at this point on some points that were unclear in the SAR.

11 3.3 General Comments

The Head of School, the staff and the students of the School were very honest and open to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the School during the process of the Site Visit. The QA Review was, in particular, a catalyst for students’ evaluation of the course. These issues will be developed further in this report. The timetable of the Site Visit was sufficiently flexible to deal with the changes that were needed as issues arose on the Site Visit.

Frequently occurring themes:

There were a number of frequently reccurring themes that were highlighted in the SAR and on the Site Visit and these will be elaborated on in this report, i.e.:

 High level of dissatisfaction felt by the undergraduate students with the BSc course

 High level of commitment of the School staff to the course and the profession

 Excessive Staff workloads

 Excessive Student Workload

 Disorganisation of the undergraduate student timetable

 Lack of Communication between undergraduate students and the School staff

 The positive progress made in the research area by staff.

 The workload attached to the delivery of Postgraduate Courses/CPD courses and the Erasmus programme

 Lack of Faculty and Institutional Support in some of the School’s activities

 The structure and the staff workload in the current Clinical system

 Isolation of staff and students from the University

12 4. THE PEER REVIEW

4.1 Methodology of the Peer Review Group Report

The Peer Review Group (PRG) met every evening of the Site Visit. At these discussions, it was decided that the Chapters and the focus of the Site Visit questions could be divided up among the PRG members. However, all members contributed to all chapters. These were divided as follows:

Dr Vera Čapková: Support Services Dr Geraldine O’Neill: Composing report and overall description of the Review methodology Professor Peter Dervan, Department Planning and Organisation, External Relations Ms Gill Marshall: Research and Scholarly Activity Mr Graham Morgan: Taught Programmes, Teaching and Learning

Although tasks were delegated among the Peer Review Group, all members had an opportunity to comment on all areas during the Site Visit. The final report, including recommendations, is an agreed consensus of the group.

4.2 Peer Review Group's View of the Self-assessment Report (SAR)

The Self-assessment Report was comprehensive and there was evidence of a high degree of effort put into its composition. The final chapter on the SWOT analysis, however, was not very focused, it appeared that staff had run out of time to re-focus on the main priorities emerging from the review. This seemed to be confirmed by the presentation of an additional summary SWOT analysis on the first day of the visit.

The SAR was very honest in reflecting on the issues that needed change in the School. Some of the ambitions in the Quality Statements in Chapter 2 of the SAR appear to add a significant additional workload.

The omissions from the report noted by the PRG pertained to the lack of student involvement in the process and the lack of some solutions within the control of the School.

13 5. THE FINDINGS OF THE PEER REVIEW GROUP

5.1 Departmental Details

The School of Diagnostic Imaging has highly motivated staff and students. Their graduates are well recognised in the international and national contexts. The School is the only such School in the Republic of Ireland. The staff members are committed to the professional development of the practising Radiographers. It is currently a time of change for the School with the intended move onto the main UCD campus. There were particular issues, however, such as, student dissatisfaction with the undergraduate course and issues related to staff workload, research opportunities, clinical structures. These issues will be discussed in more detail throughout this report.

5.2 Department Planning and Organisation

Strategic planning. The School's mission statement on page 17 of the SAR states that its mission is to provide clinically relevant programs that are evidence-based, and that contribute to a high standard of patient care. The entire contents of Chapter two of the SAR, between pages 16 and 33 are given over to various aspects of the mission statement. The PRG felt that this Chapter could have contained more specifics, explaining how goals might be achieved. Overall, the contents were highly aspirational. However, as the School is moving to its new campus and a new building, there are great opportunities for restructuring their aims and aspirations, as they will be sharing a new purpose-built building with the other Schools in the Faculty of Medicine (Medicine, Physiotherapy, and Nursing and Midwifery).

The PRG recommends that the School set aside at least one full day out for all staff for strategic planning of the School’s aims and aspirations, as this was not done as part of the QA process to date.

An important part of the School's vision is to have a Chair within the School. This would help them to achieve parity with the other Schools in the Faculty of Medicine.

The PRG noted the desire of the staff for research output. At present, staff members feel frustrated because they have insufficient time to become more actively involved in meaningful research. This is mainly due to their heavy teaching and organisational workloads. A number of factors contribute to the excess workloads. The undergraduate curriculum is massively overloaded with factual content. Direct contact teaching appears to occupy virtually every hour of every day (for staff and students). Students appear to have no time for contemplation or independent learning during the day.

One major contributing factor to the curriculum overload appears to be the content of courses taught by Departments outside the School. Students, staff and the PRG believe that many of the topics taught are of little direct relevance to the practising Radiographer. Students need customised courses that are directly relevant to their professional education. For logistical reasons, it is usually not possible for outside Departments to provide such customised courses. This results in Radiography students having to take the same courses that have been designed for Medical or Science students.

14 The PRG recommends that as part of the new curriculum such customised courses, relevant to the students’ professional education, be designed. In addition, certain aspects of the current curriculum might need to be modified or updated in relation to the rapidly expanding sphere of digital imaging and digital technology. The PRG also recommends that the School should study the new curricula that have been introduced to other Schools outside of Ireland. This would ensure that the School's curriculum was in line with international trends.

In terms of human resources, the School has 10 academic staff and two administrative staff. In general, staff appear to get on well with each other. As mentioned above, they feel that they are overworked and need additional staff. Some of them admitted that it would be useful and prudent to re-evaluate their requirements after the curriculum has been restructured.

The students’ perception of the School's organisational skills varied considerably between junior and senior students. Junior students, Second Year students in particular, were highly critical and complained about their lack of trust in procedures and in some of the staff (see below). They complained that timetables and rotas were frequently changed without the students having been informed adequately and in time. Fourth Year students were less critical and stated that the staff were hard- working and did their best under difficult circumstances. Second Year students stated that they felt like they were still in Secondary School. Because they were in such close contact with their lecturers on a daily basis they often did not respond to questionnaires truthfully. Their perception was that such questionnaires did not have the anonymity they desired. The PRG felt that many of the problems related to student trust stemmed from the fact that the students were isolated in one building (like a Secondary School) and did not enjoy the openness and facilities enjoyed by students on the main campus.

The PRG recommends a revised anonymous student evaluation system that is both formative and summative and that is acceptable to the concerns expressed by the students.

Apart from a drastic reduction in the number of contact hours, many lecturers felt that a block release procedure for certain topics (in particular, the clinical sessions) would help with timetabling.

The PRG recommends a review of the clinical placement structure to a more block release. The hospital sessions in First-Year could be replaced with a module located in the school.

Organisation - Management structure/committee structure There are staff meetings every week, except during the summer months. Minutes are taken. The Director attends whenever possible. One of the lecturers chairs these meetings and decides on the agenda, with input from the other staff. There is a high level of goodwill among staff. Staff enjoy considerable academic freedom. However, some felt that they would benefit by having greater independence. The Director of the School has also been the Head of the Department, since her appointment in 1993. She and some of the staff felt that the School would benefit by having a rotating headship, similar to most other departments throughout the Faculty and University. In addition, it was made apparent during the Site Visit that there is a need for University and Faculty support for the wide-ranging demands placed on Heads of Departments in professional Schools.

15 The PRG recommends the concept of a rotating headship.

The PRG recommends University/Faculty support for the Head.

Budgeting Like many other departments, the School is barely surviving on its budget. Its sources of income are: HEA grants and fee income, postgraduate fees, overseas student fees, external research funds, and sponsored awards. In addition, it gets a supplies and travel budget disbursed through the Faculty. The School gets considerable budgetary management service via the Faculty office budget manager. The nature of their teaching requires expensive equipment. There is not an adequate system in place to replace such equipment. There are also problems replacing computers. The School is examining several possibilities for increasing their departmental income. There does not appear to be an immediate solution to their inadequate budget. In general, account sheets provided by the Bursar's Office are accurate. When discrepancies have occurred, the Senior Executive Assistant has identified these. The School Director also looks at account summaries.

The PRG recommends that the Budget allocation to the School should be reviewed with the Faculty.

Department communications with the Faculty The Director is a member of the Faculty Executive. Many of the staff members are also members of Faculty and attend Faculty meetings. The PRG did not find any dissatisfaction with the levels of communication between staff members or within the Faculty.

Staff communication within the School There appears to be excellent communication among staff members and between staff and the Director. Differences of opinion appear to be resolved amicably and informally.

Student communication within the School There is no active staff-student committee. Such a committee existed in the past, but has not been active for some time. Student communication with staff is poor. This was evident on many fronts. For instance, there was no student input into the Self-assessment Report. A student had been appointed and when he could not contribute he was not replaced. The PRG met a group of approximately 60 students from all years (the President of the Student's Union also attended). This meeting was scheduled to last for one hour. So many students wanted to raise issues related to their courses and be heard that the meeting lasted 1.5 hours. After this meeting, many students made immediate contact with individual members of the PRG in order to ensure that their views were understood. The PRG agreed to meet again with a representative group on the following morning. This meeting took place for approximately 45 minutes and there was a continued discussion of the issues raised. These related to work-overload, poorly organised timetables and lectures, in some cases, poor and out-of-date teaching, distrust in the staff (some of them), being treated like children in a Secondary School rather than adults in a University, and a perception of intimidation and being afraid to voice their true opinions. Assessments of teachers and teaching were not anonymous nor was marking of all examinations.

The undergraduates felt that promises given by the School were not carried through. So much so, that they now felt such meetings were no longer useful. The PRG informed the staff of the students' sentiments. Most staff were genuinely surprised

16 and greatly disappointed at the level of student anger and distrust.

The PRG recommends that immediate mediation be implemented between the students and staff. Such was the urgency of this recommendation that the PRG initiated this process before the PRG Report was submitted to the Quality Assurance Office.

Gender balance Traditionally, Radiography has been a female-orientated discipline. In recent times, more males have gone into the profession. The School of Diagnostic Imaging has a reasonable mix of males and females.

Workloads in the School As mentioned elsewhere, workloads are excessive. The new curriculum will provide an opportunity to rationalise the amount of work being placed on staff and students. Some staff expressed that they felt that workloads are not evenly or fairly distributed.

Recent appointments Two new lecturers have been appointed within the past three years. One is on contract work.

Administrative/office staff There are two administrative staff, one Executive assistant and one Senior Executive Assistant. Both are integrated very well into the overall running of the School and are highly regarded by staff. They work closely with each other in a highly satisfactory manner. The administrative and academic staff appear to take good advantage of the various administrative and teaching courses offered by the University.

Technical staff The School has no technical staff. The School staff carry out minor maintenance. It is anticipated that technical staff will be available to the School, on a share basis, when they move to the main campus.

5.3 Taught Programmes:

5.3.1 BSc. Radiography

The School offers the only BSc Radiography programme for Diagnostic Radiographers in Ireland. The level of commitment in delivering this with increasing student numbers combined with delivery of the other taught programmes and research expectations, is an issue for staff workloads given the existing academic and administrative staff levels. Teaching is almost entirely within the Faculty of Medicine, although some components in the early parts of the course are delivered by Departments in the Faculty of Science. Clinical experience within the course is undertaken mainly at St. Vincent’s, the Mater Misericordiae, Beaumont, Tallaght and St James Hospitals, as well as in other Dublin hospitals. The BSc produces graduates who are competent practitioners, highly regarded by the clinical departments. The School has identified that a radical revision of the curriculum is now necessary (last reviewed in 1993) to ensure that the course meets professional and educational currency.

The programme contains many subjects that represent the scientific, socio- psychological and practical elements of health care generally, and Radiography in

17 particular. The number of subjects offered is identified as a source of stress for students. However, this segmentation of the course into discrete topic areas will be resolved under major curriculum review, where it is planned to integrate subject blocks under a single topic. During the First Year, Science and Health Science subjects, that underpin understanding of later more applied topics, form the main part of year one and are mainly shared with Physiotherapy students. While an approach to inter-professional learning is commendable, this has led to some problems in terms of appropriate emphasis for the two disciplines. These problems have been discussed with Anatomy, Physiology, Chemistry and Biochemistry, and a compromise found in each case.

The PRG recommends that under major curriculum review it is ensured that the shared topics included are relevant, applied to each of the healthcare professions, are coherent and at an appropriate level and volume within the radiography curriculum.

Attrition on the course each year is of concern to the School. The reasons have been analysed and arise from a number of factors including the Radiography profession not being the first selection by some students. The data provided on attrition may also be misleading and mismatching since figures indicate numbers of places offered rather than those who actually register. Other factors include the isolation of the School from the main University for students and their rather insular experience. This should be helped by the move to the main campus.

The School has identified that the programme structure is in need of review and that the number of individual subjects with associated high number of assessments is a source of additional stress for students.

The PRG recommends that within review of the curricula that there is integration of subject areas and reduction in the number of assessments in order to reduce the burden on both the students and staff in their delivery.

Integration between academic and clinical components of the degree is clearly demonstrated and provided within each weekly timetable. However the model used is dictated to by the aforementioned ‘service level’ teaching. This arrangement creates significant workloads on staff in their providing of regular clinical support to students.

The PRG recommends that consideration is given to the move towards academic and clinical blocks of weeks in order to assist with retaining academic and clinical integration and improving staff effectiveness. This may also facilitate arrangements for students to have longer holiday periods in which they can find work for financial support. Consideration should also be given to the idea of hospital staff being more involved in the clinical teaching and being recognised or rewarded for this contribution.

In 2003-04 the use of Online Classes to administer the undergraduate degree was piloted in the First Year. This appears to be a positive step in communication although with regard to timetables, students have indicated conflict with paper versions and inappropriate sudden timetable changes.

Transferable skills are clearly articulated for each year of the course.

An Erasmus exchange programme for Third Year students to visit an EU country for a 3-month period provides a valuable experience. This also includes the opportunity

18 for staff exchanges. However exchange students visiting from the EU have experienced language and accommodation difficulties.

The PRG recommends that the School should consider the merits in participating against the work involved in such activities and should seek assistance in managing these exchanges from the International Office within the University.

5.3.2 Taught Postgraduate Programmes

There are five pathways available across the postgraduate programmes. These are Computed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Breast Imaging, Radionuclide Imaging and Ultrasound. Some of the pathways e.g. Ultrasound, are available to other healthcare professional such as nurses. Each pathway is modular and credit rated (including ECTS), and runs from Certificate through to Diploma or Higher Diploma to MSc. Each programme may be followed on a full or part-time basis and commence in January each year. The students’ experiences of postgraduate programmes and External Examiner’s comments are very positive. Student progression to MSc is limited since it is considered that funding up to diploma level provides the necessary advanced competencies desired by employing departments. Undertaking study to MSc level is generally considered to be of more personal benefit to students. Although the School considers its role is to provide a full range of programmes, actual student numbers are relatively low to make this viable and have consequences for staff workloads.

The postgraduate students that were met by the Review Group were very positive of their experience on the Taught postgraduate students. The students on the Ultrasound course described how the hospitals were good in supporting the more technical aspects of the course that contribute to a Higher Diploma but were less inclined to support the Taught Masters. This level of study was not valued in the hospital setting. The structure of the course being once a day at times was felt to be a bit splintered and the idea of a week's block for the course could be investigated. The students appeared satisfied with the teaching quality of these courses.

Some of the areas that the postgraduate students would like to see addressed were:

 a review of the sequence of the practical and theoretical aspect of the Ultrasound course  information on access to library and other resources particularly for the PG students  the potential for some distance learning (on-line) modules

The PRG recommends that there is a review of the portfolio of postgraduate courses in the light of workload demands on the staff, for example, with the potential rationalisation and review of the regularity of running courses. Potential for collaborative delivery arrangements may also exist. The School should follow up on some of the issues raised by the postgraduate students noted above.

5.3.3 Other Taught Programmes

There is a good range and high quality of continuous professional development (CPD) activities offered according to needs of clinical practitioners. These appear to be well received by employers and practitioners. While such initiatives are

19 commendable there are inevitable consequences for increased staff workloads.

The PRG recommends that the inclusion and range of CPD courses on offer are considered carefully in advanced planning with a view to clear marketing and prioritising and consideration of impact on staff workloads.

5.4 Teaching and Learning

The School employs a broad range of learning and teaching methods. Problem- based learning (PBL) has been introduced into some areas and has received mixed responses. However, the undergraduate curriculum appears to place considerable emphasis on contact teaching with little time for providing independent study and developing autonomous learning and intellectual reflection. Furthermore this exacerbates staff teaching workloads. Undergraduate perceptions are that the quality of teaching across the School is highly variable in a few modules. This is in terms of content, currency and relevance and does not always prepare students adequately for undertaking the associated assessment. The organisation of timetables is perceived by undergraduate students to be subject to frequent changes without adequate and timely communication with students.

The PRG recommends that within curriculum review that there is a balanced approach to taught delivery and independent learning with formulation of a clear teaching and learning strategy with reference to the University Teaching and Learning Policy and advice from the Centre for Teaching and Learning. Advanced planning and coherence of timetabling across each of the years of the undergraduate programme and its interface with postgraduate teaching is recommended to reduce timetable clashes and ongoing changes. This includes arrangements for clinical placements.

The learning management system, Blackboard, is available to staff and students but has not yet been well utilised. This opportunity may assist with reducing staff contact workloads and provide another means of supporting communication between staff and students.

The PRG recommend that School staff undertake training provided by Computing Services.

Early exploration of Peer Review of Teaching has been introduced.

The PRG recommends that this is enhanced to assist with supporting new and existing tutors with exploring new teaching methods and maintaining currency and coverage of content for assessment. Furthermore a mentoring system for new teaching staff would assist with providing the University expectation for Lecturers in their teaching and research.

Integration between academic and clinical components of the undergraduate programme is clearly demonstrated and provided within each weekly timetable, however, the service teaching that contributes significantly to the shared learning of the programme restricts the model used.

The PRG recommends that while shared learning should be supported the current format should be reviewed as previously indicated. With curriculum review a revised structure of academic and clinical blocks in order to facilitate consolidation of clinical practice and improve efficiencies of staff and student time/travel, associated with placements could be undertaken.

20 Consideration could also be given to the establishment of posts of clinically- based tutors, with honorary University status, from within the clinical departments to provide permanent on-site student teaching and support. Issues of consistency of marking across clinical sites has been raised and are under review by the course team, as is the recent adoption of anonymous marking that is yet to be rolled out across all years of the course.

5.5 Research and Scholarly Activity

A commendable amount of research publication (including peer review for publication), research presentation, collaboration and research funding achieved in an emerging discipline. Given the relatively recent development of the move to Higher Education, a good level of staff have achieved their PhD’s or are registered for them. The School has a research status that exceeds that of most comparable Schools in the UK, and staff led by their Director of Post Graduate Research have every reason to be proud of this.

However, there are significant time pressures on staff including lack of protected research-time or sabbaticals for research. There is some difficulty regarding imbuing new staff members with a research culture, probably related to their heavy workloads. Some staff who are keen to further themselves in this way appear thwarted by their workloads. There appears to be a lack of funding for staff who take a protracted period of time to achieve their PhD’s (which whilst not ideal may be appropriate given workloads) and an inadequacy of funding for staff to attend necessary conferences associated with study at this level.

The PRG recommends that staff workloads be rationalised, methods to achieve this are mentioned elsewhere in the report.

There is a negative effect on staff morale due to failure of staff who have yet to gain their PhDs in achieving tenure, which appears to relate to their workloads and the fact that their professional qualifications have been overlooked within the University.

The PRG recommends that the University consider professional qualifications for their equivalence to academic qualifications so as not to disadvantage staff transferring to HE from the hospital sector.

It is refreshing to hear of undergraduates actively engaging with research especially that that is non-contributory to their degrees, which shows the emphasis placed on research in the School.

It appears to be difficult for the School to encourage Postgraduate students to carry onto Master’s and PhD’s, despite the students’ satisfaction with the courses available. Less than 3% of students on taught programmes proceed to thesis. This is not uncommon and probably relates to factors outside the immediate influence of the School e.g. career structure, perceptions in the imaging departments about the limited value of research. However, there is a lack of courses on research methods and statistics easily available to non-Dublin based students. This is a problem that may be compounded by the delivery pattern of such courses. It could be addressed by the development of a cross-Faculty, distance or e-learning course. As such a course would seem to have applicability to other Schools in the Faculty:

The PRG recommends that the progression of this may best be dealt with by setting up a cross-Faculty working group on research and statistical support

21 and/or dedicated Faculty staff for statistical support.

Whilst postgraduate research students are positive about their experiences, if numbers were to increase more dedicated postgraduate facilities would be necessary.

The PRG recommended earlier that the breadth and frequency of delivery of the portfolio of taught postgraduate courses should be reviewed to rationalise them, thus releasing protected staff time for research and hopefully allowing the instigation of a sabbatical system. It is also believed this would make PG provision more cost-effective.

According to the Self-assessment Report the staff perceive internal funding for research to be poor.

The PRG recommends that the Faculty further embrace and support the School, which has shown huge commitment and innovation in research, despite lack of funding. Funding of the new equipment on the move to Belfield campus will enhance research potential and may improve recruitment of postdoctoral students.

The School have made great efforts to encourage postgraduate students doing Masters through Research and PhD’s. The students were in general satisfied with the experience of the supervision in the School. They have opportunity to present to the staff of the School. The students mentioned the additional costs of receiving research related courses within UCD, such as Computer courses. In addition there is a need for ongoing support in the area of Statistics. Research in the School at all levels would be enhanced by a designated person within the Faculty to support students particularly with respect to statistics as mentioned in the recommendation above.

In the School, there is an anomalous situation where there is no Chair of Diagnostic Imaging, a situation unique within the Faculty.

The PRG recommends the appointment of a Chair should be embraced by the University to align the School with other departments and enhance research in the School.

5.6 External Relations

The School has relationships within the Faculty of Medicine, within the University, and outside the University. Many of the school staff are members of the Faculty of Medicine and the Director of the School sits on the Faculty of Medicine Executive. They have the same rights as other members of the Faculty and Executive. As mentioned earlier, the School is dependent on a number of Science and Medical School departments to provide service teaching. As outlined above, the format of this teaching needs to be changed and customised to the needs of radiography students. Outside the University, most of the teaching hospitals in the Dublin area contribute to the education of Radiography students. There appears to be a considerable amount of time wasted in travelling to some of the hospitals. This applies to students and staff.

The PRG recommends that the School re-examine the clinical components with a view to streamlining the process without loss of academic excellence. A number of possibilities were discussed during the visit. Block release is

22 one possibility. Another consideration is the use of clinical Radiographers and staff within the hospitals to provide some of the teaching. It is possible that these hospital teachers could have honorary lectureship status. Such a relationship already exists in the other Schools within the Faculty.

The PRG also recommends that some of the clinical staff should participate in the curriculum change and that they should be on the curriculum review board. The School has a relationship with the Irish Institute of Radiographers. Members of the School staff are also members of the Institute. However, this organisation does not appear to have a great input (or possibly any input) into the curriculum.

5.7 Support Services

The academic and administrative staff of the School discussed different aspects of dealing with the administrative services (Bursar’s Office, Careers Guidance Office, Examination Office, Fees Office, Funded Research Office, International Office, Personnel Office, Registrar’s Office). They agreed that these services are generally good and efficient.

The two areas of major concern are the Computing Services and the Library. The Co-ordinating Committee asked both the academic staff and the students to give their opinion concerning access to computers and adequacy of Library resources. According to the SAR 58% of the undergraduate students complained that there were too few computers in the School and that seven open-access computers for undergraduates and postgraduates were inadequate. The main concern is the cost of Computing Services under the revised resources allocation model. It is pointed out that the School does not have sufficient resources to pay the bill, which amounts to €41,650 given that their total travel and supplies budget is approximately €29,000.

As far as the Library services are concerned the student complaints include, lack of library facilities in the School, the distance from the main University Libraries at Earlsfort Terrace and at Belfield, and inadequate availability of Radiographic textbooks and other relevant material. Academic staff expressed concern about the inadequate subscription to the Radiography journals.

The PRG recommends that the Faculty should ensure that the Library has a critical mass of textbooks for Radiography students. Resources should be available for additional Radiography journals. The forthcoming move to the campus site will help resolve the travel issue.

23 6. OVERALL ANALYSIS OF STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS /CONCERNS (SWOT ANALYSIS)

The members of the PRG acknowledge that their review has taken place under delicate circumstances for the School that have come to light through the openness in the preparation for review and are confident that the outcomes of the process will serve to enhance the position of both the staff and the students. The PRG also acknowledges that the School is in a state of transition in anticipation of the move onto the Belfield campus and plans are in place for curriculum review of the undergraduate curriculum.

The following contains the findings of the PRG and identifies the key issues arising from the outcomes of the review.

 The School has dedicated academic and administrative staff who deliver and organise a wide range of taught programmes related to Radiography and medical imaging that produce high calibre competent graduates and post- graduates who are held in high regard by clinical departments and the profession internationally.

 It is acknowledged that, in the delivery of the current undergraduate curriculum and the wide range of postgraduate courses that are offered, the staff’s academic and clinical work loads are excessive and do not allow for all staff to engage in professional development and research and scholarly activities.

 The Postgraduate students’ experiences of the taught and research programmes was very positive, but place a demand on staff workload.

 In spite of the current School achievements, difficulties have arisen as a result of the School mainly working in physical isolation from the University and the Faculty. This has an implication for providing a current University campus culture to meet staff and student expectations, access to University- wide resources, student social, recreational and support activities.

 The PRG are aware that the undergraduate students are highly dissatisfied with what appears to be a continuation of more rigid practices associated with more traditional Schools (parochial Radiography environment), that is controlling and seem to be unaligned to the current student expectations of the academic and social aspects of University life.

 The School provides opportunity for communication with the undergraduate students, evident by its mentoring arrangements and module evaluation by staff. A student staff committee that was in existence has not been in place recently. The PRG believe that formal feedback communication process with School is severely lacking and that there is lack of confidence in the process and conduct relating to anonymity and confidentiality and use of feedback information. It is noted that anonymity of marking has recently been introduced in some years. Issues arising from student feedback do not appear to be acted upon or related back to students adequately.

 The School exhibits a strong commitment to a research culture with a

24 significant level of publications, successful research grants and research student registrations comparable to international standards in the discipline. A number of staff have PhDs or are working towards them, although not all staff are research-active there is a strong desire to participate that is restricted by the current demands both by the academic and clinical teaching workloads.

 Staff appear to be very open and receptive to opportunities afforded by the changing educational environment. Even with high workloads staff indicate keenness to take responsibility to develop, progress and implement their ideas and projects. Staff are eager to develop their career paths and would welcome experience of managerial and academic responsibility to meet promotion criteria. However, the current environment identified in the Self- assessment Report and in the Site Visit show deficiencies in organisation. This environment also appears to constrain full opportunity to take leadership roles currently given to other University staff in UCD.

 The School employs a broad range of learning and teaching methods and has introduced problem-based learning into some areas, however the undergraduate curriculum appears to place considerable emphasis on contact teaching with little time for providing independent study and developing autonomous learning and intellectual reflection. Furthermore this exacerbates staff teaching workloads. Undergraduate perceptions are that the quality across the School is highly variable and in a few modules, in terms of content, currency and relevance and do not always prepare students adequately for undertaking assessment. Organisation of timetables is perceived by undergraduate students to be subject to frequent changes without adequate and timely communication with students.

 While the School is concerned for the welfare of the student community, the undergraduate students indicate a lack of trust in terms of empathy and confidentiality. Support mechanisms appear to be inconsistent with some students claiming potential bias and personalisation due to their circumstances. This could be exacerbated by the close working environment.

 Integration between academic and clinical components of the undergraduate programme is clearly demonstrated and provided within each weekly timetable, however, the service teaching that contributes significantly to the shared learning of the programme restricts the model used. While shared learning should be supported the current format should be reviewed as previously indicated.

25 6.1 Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Strengths: Below is a more specific list of the SWOT as perceived by the PRG.

Strengths

 Very open and dedicated teaching and administrative staff  Good team effort and very professional outlook on course  Staff feel very supported by each other  Staff research well developed  Rotating staff meetings have worked well  There has been a start of a rationalisation of assessments for most years  Erasmus has been successful but draining on staff  Good range of Postgraduate Courses/CPD/Erasmus, however the range of these is also threat to workload for staff

Weaknesses

 High level of student dissatisfaction in many areas (communication, organisation, lack of an anonymous assessment and student feedback system, uneven quality of teaching)  Staff workload  Student Workload, particularly in Second Year  Communication between staff and students lack structures that encourage dialogue and feedback  Student-led Student/Staff Committee was disbanded  The service teaching (Chemistry, Biochemistry, some Physiology, and some Physics) is very broad and at times not relevant to Radiography  Staff have not provided marking criteria and guidelines answers requested by students  All courses do not have second marking  Quality of Teaching in specific areas, particularly in Second Year  Lack of Faculty and Institutional Support in some of the School’s activities  Lack of statistical courses streamlined for both undergraduate and postgraduate  Lack of computers for some staff and no scanner  Time involved in organisation of accommodation issues for Erasmus students

Opportunities

 Revision of basic science subjects taught including for example the breadth and relevance of subjects such as Physics  Review of Model of clinical structure would help in the service teaching and work overload  Possible rationalisation of Taught Postgraduates for a period of time, but preference of staff is to rationalise the undergraduate and clinical contact hours.  Higher level involvement of clinical staff in student clinical teaching through some initiatives such as the creation of Clinical Specialist Positions in practice - this should help free up academic staff time

26 Threats / Concerns

 Student dissatisfaction with their academic experience is a cause of concern. This needs to be addressed immediately to prevent damage of staff/student relationships and to their learning experience  Lack of equipment in the clinical laboratories in the new building  Any delay in the move to the main campus - the current space in the St Vincent’s building would be inadequate for extra students. In addition, the environment (for example, temperature in Winter) is becoming more difficult to work in  Isolation of staff and students from the University support systems at present  Workload extremely heavy for staff who are losing out the tenure and promotion system  Staff and students are both under stress due to workloads which affect work- life balance  Managerial workload of Director (permanent) is restricting promotion of person in this position  Summer clinical practice which ties up student and staff time  Lack of dedicated research time is a barrier to tenure and promotion  Library does not hold adequate amount of texts and journals for students

27 7. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Throughout this Report the PRG have made some major and some more minor recommendations. The following is a summary of the main recommendations:

University Level recommendations:

 In line with the recommendation for the School to have parity with other University and Faculty Departments the PRG recommends the establishment of a Professorial post (Chair) in Radiography/Diagnostic Imaging and a Rotating Headship. In addition, support systems need to be put into place to support the administrative demands placed on the Heads of professional Schools.

 A review of the current budgetary requirements of the School needs to be carried out by the University, so that the School’s realistic needs are met, particularly Library and equipment needs.

 The PRG recommends that the School is supported at Faculty and Institutional level to become fully entrenched as an academic discipline, in particular, in preparation for the actual physical move to the new Faculty building on the Belfield campus. In addition, the School should be given comparable parity and expectations of the other Schools and Departments in the Faculty.

Faculty Level (in collaboration with the School)

 Service teaching should become more focused, flexible and reduced.

 Within the curriculum review, the PRG recommends the introduction of a revised structure of academic and clinical blocks in order to facilitate consolidation of clinical practice and improve efficiencies of staff and student time/travel, associated with placements. It is further recommended that consideration be given to the establishment of the post of clinically based tutors, with honorary University status, from within the clinical departments to provide a permanent on-site student teaching and support.

 The investigation of a method to gain Faculty/Institutional support for statistical and research methods expertise, particularly in a distance- learning medium.

 Opportunity to review the School’s staffing levels should be provided, particularly after the School have made efforts with curriculum reduction within their own control.

School Level

 It is recommended that the School commence immediate radical changes to the undergraduate academic and clinical curriculum in order to improve teaching and learning quality, reduce and integrate subjects taught, where feasible, for example - review and reduction of service teaching

28 - reduction of the volume of assessment and corresponding marking workload - Reconsideration of the contact hours - Investigation of other curriculum models, for example current UK curricula - a balanced approach to taught delivery and independent learning with formulation of a clear teaching and learning strategy with reference to the University Teaching and Learning Policy and advice from the Centre for Teaching and Learning

 A review of the portfolio of postgraduate/CPD courses should be made in the light of workload demands on the staff, for example, with the potential rationalisation of these programmes.

 The School should develop solutions to the timetabling disorganisation issues, and the establishment of a more professional management of this system.

 The PRG recommends the student-staff committee be immediately re- instated and that an external representative not associated with the School attend the meetings to assist with objectivity. The minutes of the meetings should be available to the body of students for discussion and feedback provided to students.

 The PRG recommends that mechanisms are put in place to ensure module and programme evaluations are arranged and collected in a manner that preserves anonymity and to monitor changes and improvements. A range of types of feedback should be sought and the system should be acceptable to the student population.

 The PRG recommends that systems and procedures are devised and implemented to actively promote the use the University’s Student Advisory services.

 The establishment of anonymous marking across all subjects, where possible.

Since its establishment, the School of Diagnostic Imaging has been the main instigator of educational changes in the area of Radiography and related areas in the Republic of Ireland. The School is well recognised nationally and internationally. The School’s commitment and openness to change and the impending move to the main campus will help improve the experiences for staff and students alike in the years ahead. The PRG therefore recommends the swift progress of the School to the next phase of the Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement process, namely Quality Improvement which could see the implementation of many of the above recommendations.

29 8. Response of the Departmental Co-ordinating Committee to the Peer Review Group Report

The staff of the School of Diagnostic Imaging entered into the Quality Assurance exercise with honesty and openness, anticipating that this year, culminating in the Site Visit, would be an integral part of continuing Quality Improvement in the School. We thank our Peer Review Group for their commitment and advice during the Site Visit. Generally, the staff believe that the whole exercise, together with much of the advice of the Peer Review Group, will lead to improved standards across all of the School's activity.

Several important issues arose during the whole process, most significantly from questionnaires returned by undergraduate students in some year groups. These issues were explored with the students by the Peer Review Group, and are represented in the Peer Review Group Report. The same issues were also raised by students through other offices, and hence other processes have been ongoing simultaneously with the QA exercise. The staff acknowledges the student issues, but believes their right of reply has not been fully explored, either through UCD processes in the lead-up to and after the Site Visit, or during discussions with the Peer Review Group. Staff have borne this situation with fortitude, believing that the eventual report of the Peer Review Group would recognise the staff perspective. We find this to be the case in some areas but not in others. We therefore value the opportunity to respond to the Peer Review Group Report, both generally, and on a point by point basis.

General Response

Over the last ten years the School, via its staff, has achieved astounding progress. Running concurrently with the establishment of a new Honours degree, the total student number has nearly tripled, clinical training sites have been expanded accordingly, taught postgraduate courses have been developed, our research profile has grown steadily, and we have sustained commitment to CPD delivery. Graduates of this School enjoy a national and international reputation for excellence. International external examiners have consistently reviewed our undergraduate and postgraduate courses favourably. These achievements could not have occurred if the poor level of organisation and leadership portrayed in undergraduate student comments, and hence in the Peer Review Group Report, represented a totally accurate perspective. The staff do not believe that the identified frequently occurring themes completely reflects the scope and quality of school activity described above or in the presentation in our Self Assessment Report.

The staff acknowledge that there were issues with which some students were strongly dissatisfied during the Site Visit. Discussions between staff and students, both before and since the Site Visit, indicate the situation is not as bad as appears, nor is the dissatisfaction consistent across all year groups, or indeed across all students within a year group. In terms of communication, the majority of staff strongly believe they have always enjoyed open and worthwhile interactions with students,

30 and have always treated students and student issues with the utmost respect, and in total confidence. In terms of organisation, the staff believe this is generally good, and that disorganisation per se is not the root cause of issues identified through the QA process. Staff are very concerned that a balanced perspective on these issues in particular is not evident in the Report.

In the aftermath of the Quality Assurance Site Visit, discussions of the issues have been ongoing. There is an opinion that the QA process, that was entered into positively, with enthusiasm and commitment, has provoked disenchantment in staff and students alike. The staff found the time for personal discussion with the PRG extremely short, and quite imbalanced compared with the time devoted to student discussions. Staff had limited opportunity to fully address difficult issues. We believe this is reflected in the Peer Review Group Report, which identifies important negative student perceptions, but does not place these perceptions against the context of staff perceptions of the same issues.

In summary, the staff believes that the QA exercise has been a useful and revealing process. The Peer Review Report presents many concerns with which we fully agree. Equally, some reported issues do not appear to us to have any substantial evidence base. However, as part of Quality Improvement we shall seek consensus as to whether such evidence can be established. We have already started working to resolve some issues within our own power, and we look forward to continuing this throughout our Quality Improvement stage.

Specific comments on Peer Review Group Report p13, section 5.2, paragraph 1

Pages 16-33 (of our SAR) have been reported as highly aspirational and lacking in specifics. The staff believe that Quality statements should be aspirational, acting as benchmarks for quality improvement and future audit. p13, section 5.2, final paragraph

Staff acknowledge the urgent need for curriculum reform and rationalisation. Staff are disturbed at the statement that many subjects are of little relevance. There are irrelevant components in some subjects. Totally customised courses are resource limited, and not in the spirit of interdisciplinarity currently being advocated in Faculty. The UCD course does provide a comprehensive scientific background to the practice of Radiography that, with well-considered rationalisation, will provide a relevant professional education for radiographers in the future.

p14, 1 st recommendation

Curriculum design in the School has always considered and been informed by national and international benchmarks for radiography education. The staff feel that this recommendation implies such has not been the case.

31 p14, 3 rd recommendation

The School values early student contact with the clinical environment, and students themselves have consistently viewed this experience positively. Complete removal of clinical contact in First Year is not globally supported by the staff, and may not be supported at all by the student body.

p15, 1 st and 2 nd recommendation

The staff support the concept of a rotating headship. Implementation requires careful and more detailed consideration than was possible during the Site Visit. p15, paragraph 4

This section details student concerns and perceptions of the School, its’ staff and structures, rather than just student communication. The staff side acknowledges that immediately before and during the Site Visit students voiced many negative comments. The comments collectively portray a poor impression, and appear here to reflect the opinion of all students. Clearly there are some serious issues which the staff have to address. However, during the Quality Assurance surveys, staff received positive feedback from undergraduates and postgraduates that would balance some of the comments here. p17, paragraph 2

In our analysis of attrition, we found no evidence to support that isolation is a factor, although perhaps students reported some evidence of this to the Peer Review Group. Since the School is moving to Belfield in 2005, we are confident this issue will be addressed.

p18, 1 st recommendation

The School staff, as well as student participants in Erasmus, perceive huge benefits in the Erasmus programme. The School takes all available assistance from the International Office. One particular benefit of Erasmus participation is to monitor our course against international standards. p18, section 5.3.2, paragraph 2

The structure of the postgraduate courses is that specific modules are delivered on specific days, and groups of modules associated with a course are in the same week (i.e., a block system exists). The staff believe this structure adds flexibility for adult learners and is consistent with current University policy.

p19, section 5.4, paragraph 1

The staff acknowledge curriculum issues that are a focus of discussion in our current curriculum development. The reported timetable problems were audited prior to the Site Visit, indicating changes or cancellations in some lectures, primarily in the second year of the undergraduate course. The staff have discussed the causes, and conclude that timetables are generally well - planned and organised, but suffered in

32 2003-2004 due to unusual staff commitments across undergraduate and postgraduate course programmes, normal work responsibilities and necessary (for undergraduate benefit) staff attendance at courses. Normal procedures for notifying lecture swaps were not consistently adhered to under pressure of work, but have been reinstated.

p19, section 5.4, 3 rd recommendation

Staff have successfully used the Online Classes e-learning environment, whilst UCD was sorting out issues with Blackboard. The majority of staff have attended Blackboard training and the School has always had a strategy of moving to Blackboard at a viable time.

p19, section 5.4, 4 th recommendation

The peer mentoring system for new staff, which is in place since 2002, is supported through a comprehensive departmental induction programme, which is run in addition to that offered by the UCD Centre for Teaching and Learning.

p20, 1 st recommendation

The School has been negotiating for clinical support for at least six years. The staff agree that greater involvement of clinical radiographers in student clinical teaching is highly desirable. However, we are currently investigating a number of initiatives and do not believe the recommended action is the only, or the necessarily the best, solution.

p20, section 5.5, 2 nd recommendation

The staff value the recommendation that other aspects of our workload be taken into account in the tenure process, and we recognise this as pivotal to the development of staff within the university generally. As well as rationalising our own workloads, we hope that the current review of the tenure system will consider professional contribution and result in reframing of the tenure process.

p21, 1 st recommendation

The staff agree that rationalisation should occur, but that this should be across all activity, not just postgraduate courses.

p25, Strengths

The high regard in which our graduates are held both nationally and internationally is not cited as a strength.

p25 Weaknesses , 7 th bullet point

For the past ten years, the School staff have distributed marking criteria for course work assessments at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. In line with current international standards, the staff do not perceive guideline answers to be a useful educational approach.

33 p25 Weaknesses 8 th bullet point

To our knowledge, total second marking is not policy within UCD; however, moderation of marking across all courses was introduced in the School in January 2004.

34