Each Institutional Audit results in a report published by the QAA 20 weeks after the Audit has taken place. Two weeks after the visit (week beginning 21st June 2010) a letter will be sent to the Master outlining the team's judgement on:
- the confidence that can reasonably be placed in the soundness of the institution's present and likely future management of the academic standards of its awards
- the confidence that can reasonably be placed in the soundness of the institution's present and likely future management of the quality of the learning opportunities available to students.
An audit team's judgement is not about academic standards as such, but about the way that the institution ensures that its academic standards are secured by the work of its examiners, internal and external, judged against the reference points of the Academic Infrastructure. Nor is the team's judgement about the quality of learning opportunities as such, but rather about the way that the institution ensures that the learning opportunities available to students are of an appropriate quality, with reference to the guidance in the Academic Infrastructure. In this context, 'learning opportunities' is taken to mean the combined effect of the programmes of study and academic and personal support for students.
The judgement will be one of three: 'confidence', 'limited confidence' or 'no confidence'.
Audit teams will also comment specifically on:
- the institution's arrangements for maintaining appropriate academic standards and quality of provision of postgraduate research programmes
- the institution's approach to developing and implementing institutional strategies for enhancing the quality of its educational provision, both taught and by research
- the reliance that can reasonably be placed on the accuracy and completeness of the information that the institution publishes about the quality of its educational provision and the standards of its awards.
Institutional audit reports will include recommendations for further consideration by the institution, and will identify features of good practice that the audit team considers to make a particularly positive contribution to the institution's approach to the management of the security of academic standards and of the quality of provision in the context of that institution.
Recommendations will be categorised in order of priority:
- 'essential' recommendations refer to important matters that the audit team believes are currently putting quality and/or standards at risk and which require urgent corrective action
- 'advisable' recommendations refer to matters that the audit team believes have the potential to put quality and/or standards at risk and require preventive or corrective action
- 'desirable' recommendations refer to matters that the audit team believes have the potential to improve the quality of learning opportunities and/or further secure the academic standards of awards.