Acceptability, impact and sustainability of the national pilot quality assurance system for self management programs

Chronic condition self-management education and training interventions such as the Stanford Self Management Programs (SMP) have the capacity to improve health and quality of life of people with chronic conditions whilst reducing the use of health services. This is in line with the outcomes from the recent Council of Australian Governments’ meeting where it was indicated that self-management will be a centrepiece in forthcoming chronic disease initiatives.
Aim: report on a large national pilot quality assurance program involving the implementation and of an evaluation and quality monitoring system for SMPs including the provision of structured feedback to courses course leaders and service providers. During 2005/06 the quality assurance program was implemented at 11 diverse organisations across Australia. The program involved assisting organisations apply the 42-item Health Education Impact Questionnaire (HEIQ), a chronic disease health education outcome measure, and then observe and evaluate the value and impact of the quality program. Interviews with course leaders (n=60) and course participants (n=35) have elicited views about course quality and feedback processes.
Results: The evaluation revealed enablers and barriers to effective implementation and sustainability. Important enablers were:
- Course Leaders and organisations valued an Australia-wide system that provided feedback on course
quality and the impact on participants.
- Course Leaders were strongly personally motivated to respond appropriately to HEI-Q course
report feedback.
- Completing the questionnaire provided participants with the opportunity to reflect on issues that
emerge in the course content and reflect on their progression at the end of the SSMP.
Sustainability issues included:
- Organisations and course leaders require support, training and flexibility on how to administer and
manage the use of the HEI-Q.
- Availability of administrative resources in organisations to support the quality assurance activities.
- The requirement that course leaders are trained in interpreting HEI-Q course report data.
A quality improvement framework was developed which identified the actions required of key stakeholders to
support effective implementation.
Discussion: With the increasing endorsement of SMP across sectors it is important that course quality is known, is acceptable, and is communicated to stakeholders to inform and engender confidence in the SSMP. To effectively implement and sustain a quality improvement program for SMP, the processes and tools for measuring outcomes need to be responsive, flexible and easily integrated into the organisation and delivery of programs.

From quality assurance to process improvement : an action research project

This action research project was undertaken at the Casino & District Memorial Hospital in northern N.S.W. during 1995 & 1996. The purpose was to utilise the Action Research frameork to enable the participants to improve their problem solving skills in relation to quality improvement strategies within the Nursing Division.

Australian transnational higher education quality assurance in Singapore and Malaysia

This thesis investigates the nature of the mutual understanding of quality assurance between two importing countries and Australia, as an exporter, of transnational higher education. The findings highlight the risks for policy makers and the need for better communication and collaboration between importing and exporting institutions and their transnational higher education counterparts.

Accountability, quality assurance and performativity : the changing role of the academic board

This article undertakes a review of Australian and international literature and higher education policy in response to the changing nature of university academic boards (also known as academic senates or faculty senates). It shows that governance has become an issue for both the state and for universities and that within this context risk management and accountability mechanisms such as academic quality assurance are taking an increasingly prominent role. These developments have altered the form and function of academic governance and have fundamentally affected the academic board. For example, some literature reports that the role of Australian academic boards now largely revolves around academic quality assurance and it is argued that this is potentially problematic because of a focus on audit-driven accountability mechanisms. However, the article concludes by suggesting that as part of a broader quality assurance framework there is also an opportunity for academic boards to have a central role in the development of academic standards that focus on enhancing learning outcomes rather than on compliance.