An Coiste FeabhaisAcadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2002 – 2003
REVIEW OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF BACTERIOLOGY
Final Report
8th April 2003
Department of Bacteriology: Review Group Report
This report arises from a visit by a review team to the Department of Bacteriology on
February 3rd and 4th, 2003. The Department had already prepared and submitted a 'Self
Assessment Report' that, with other documentation, was made available to the review team in
advance of the visit.
The review team consisted of:
Professor Hilary Humphreys, Dept. of Clinical Microbiology, Beaumont Hospital and
RCSI, Dublin (Chairperson)
Dr Mary Sheppard, Department of Histopathology, Royal Brompton Hospital, London
Professor Emer Colleran, Department of Microbiology, NUI, Galway (Cognate)
Mr. Brendan Flynn of the CFA and Department of Political Science and Sociology
(Rapporteur)
The report is structured to cover the following main topics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
Aims and Objectives
Organization and management
Programmes and Instruction
Scholarship and Research
Community Service
The Wider Context
Summary and Concluding Remarks
Aims and Objectives
1.1
The review group was most impressed with the efforts made by the Department of
Bacteriology to reach its stated aims and objectives, given limited resources especially as
regards staff. However, we feel the Department is at a critical juncture as regards its future
development.
1.2
A continued focus on balanced excellence, paying attention to the mix of clinical
demands, teaching and research, needs to be maintained. Currently heavy clinical loads and
teaching commitments tend to dominate what is already a very impressive research track
record.
1.3
The demonstrated potential as regards research in particular needs to be carefully
nurtured and focused over the coming years. Teaching and clinical loads need to be reduced
in order to sustain research output.
1.4
We believe that new staff are critical to the future achievement of the Department’s
aims and objectives. Additionally, there must be a more assertive and targeted effort by the
Department to argue for these resources with the Medical Faculty, the UMT, and the WHB.
BacteriologyFinalReport03
1
Department of Bacteriology: Review Group Report
2.
Organization and management
2.1
We note the huge clinical loads that Departmental staff carry with considerable
difficulty. Under RCPath guidelines, it would appear the Department should have several
additional medical consultants for clinical and diagnostic laboratory work in the hospital; this
will directly and indirectly benefit the University Department. We note also here that any
future retirement of senior staff needs to be planned for now.
2.2
Taking these observations together, we strongly advocate, as a matter of urgency, the
provision of at least one additional non-clinical permanent member of staff, who would
reduce teaching loads, and undertake some of the supervision of the PhD research students. In
our view, it is imperative that the UMT support such a position as soon as possible.
2.3
In the longer term, there is a need to confirm the Department’s status as a full
academic unit. Without doubt, this will be challenging in institutional terms. What is
particularly needed is greater evidence of support from within the Faculty and the UMT. This
also requires an initiative on the part of the Department to now clearly outline their needs in
the context of a focussed Departmental Strategy which should be immediately submitted to
the UMT. (See 2.5)
2.4
It is important that there is an established standing forum for regular, structured and
targeted means of communication and negotiation with the WHB. We note that high-level
meetings with the Medical Faculty, UMT staff, and the WHB management have increased
over the last year. However, we believe this needs to be improved upon with a more
structured framework, which would guarantee the input of the Head of the Department of
Bacteriology.
2.5
There is scope for a greater Faculty of Medicine dimension to support and provide
coherence to the Department’s plans and ambitions. For example dedicated administrative
support could be secured and funded, partly on a Faculty basis. We noted the suggested
innovation of an integrated academic unit of Laboratory Medicine within the faculty, which
would incorporate both the Departments of Pathology and Bacteriology. This proposal if it is
to be taken seriously, needs closer examination. It might well be attractive on grounds of
efficiency and streamlining of resources. However, in our view, any such new approach to
organising the Department within the Faculty on a more integrated basis, must ensure the
integrity of the discipline of Bacteriology, and the balance between Bacteriology and other
departments within the Faculty.
2.6
The Department should consider changing its name to the “Department of Clinical
Microbiology”. This would more accurately reflect the scope of the Department’s brief in
both its clinical and academic activities and would provide a more modern way to relate to
relevant, external institutions, both nationally and internationally.
2.7
One substantive area that requires clarification relates to departmental funding and
management procedures (student FTEs, etc.). These matters appear to be additionally
complicated in the Medical Faculty. We suggest that the Department should ensure a
structured meeting/workshop with relevant University staff from the Registrar’s Office and
Bursar’s Office to clarify such matters.
BacteriologyFinalReport03
2
Department of Bacteriology: Review Group Report
2.8
We note that internal management and communications appear very good but mainly
informal. However, demands of paperwork and growing complexity of University financial
systems strongly suggests that the Department requires dedicated administrative support. The
current system of shared secretarial support with Pathology is inadequate and requires
consolidation by the addition of a dedicated staff member (see 2.5).
2.9
The Department must plan and anticipate changes in the overall medical faculty
environment, arising from fiscal pressure to expand student numbers. Given the fact that key
staff are already over committed to teaching, this would pose serious challenges for the
Department
2.10 The Review Group noted with approval, the performance of the technical staff of the
Department, who demonstrated a good working relationship with other staff and whose
contribution was much valued and appreciated by students.
3.
Programmes and Instruction
3.1
In general, we were highly impressed with the standard of teaching and instruction. It
is clear there is a culture of teaching that is of a very high standard.
3.2
The Review Group noted that Tutorial and Practicals appeared to be well organised
and that serious thought had gone into their educational value. For example, practical class
sizes had been reduced by splitting and double teaching.
3.3
Teaching content and curriculum appeared to highly relevant, continually updated,
and well presented.
3.4
We believe that the Department may, however, face future challenges in teaching
loads if there is growth in student numbers allied to delay in appointing additional or
replacement staff.
3.5
The Department should continue to review its course examination methods. The exact
details as regards oral exams, MCQs and the merit of semesterisation should all be actively
evaluated to consider if these would help balance students’ learning burden. Integration of
some teaching with other departments should be explored (e.g. causes and the management of
diarrhoea with Medicine).
3.6
The Department should play a full role in medical curriculum development. Our
impression is that there does not appear to be an active process within the Faculty to update
and improve the Undergraduate Medical Curriculum.
4.
Scholarship and Research
4.1
We were most impressed with the research outputs of the Department, especially
given the clinical and teaching load carried by the staff and the consequent time restraints.
Publication in peer-reviewed international journals of high citation index evidences the
outstanding quality of research carried out in the Department.
4.2
We believe that the research potential of the Department is one of its strongest assets
and requires greater prioritisation. Currently, heavy teaching and clinical loads are restricting
its growth, for example, by turning away PhD students. There is a need for a greater
BacteriologyFinalReport03
3
Department of Bacteriology: Review Group Report
prioritisation of research compared with teaching and clinical commitments, although we
appreciate current staff resources cannot support this prioritisation.
4.3
We note the growing research community of PhD and Post/Docs in the Department.
This was a highly impressive body of activity when considered collectively. However, space
for researchers appears to be crowded and additional research space will be a key challenge
for the Department in the future.
4.4
In order to further expand the research effort of the Department, we recommend
increased links and synergies with other University Departments and Research Institutes
(Microbiology, National Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science (NCBMES), etc.).
4.5
In particular, we reiterate the link between staffing issues and the Department’s
research potential. It is vital that the UMT appreciate the need to fund additional academic
staff who would share the teaching load, engage in relevant research and free senior
consultant staff to continue to publish in journals of international repute.
5.
Community Service
5.1 The Department has extensive commitments to the WHB and provides a broad range of
services to General Practitioners locally. The Department’s leading role in the provision of
the Samonella Interim Reference Laboratory deserves special mention. Additionally, many
members of staff are extensively involved in professional associations and learned societies.
6.
The Wider Context
6. 1
We noted the excellence of the medical library and the dedication of its staff. We
were impressed by the efforts made to make the best possible use of modern IT in this area to
support students. However, we note that the medical library is constrained by its small space.
6.2
Support from Computer Services appears more than adequate, and has kept pace with
the Department’s growing demands.
6.3
We noted the growing role of the Dean of Research’s Office as regards furthering a
culture of research in NUI, Galway. In our view however, a more proactive engagement with
departments should be attempted by the Dean of Research’s Office, offering a more tailored
and focused encouragement. [new]
6.4
It would appear that the relationship between the Medical Faculty and line
departments such as Pathology needs greater communication and institutional reform. The
appointment of a full time Dean of the Faculty could offer the Department a champion to
engage with University and WHB management.
7.
Summary and Concluding Remarks
By way of summary, we stress here a number of crucial insights and suggestions.
7.1
The Department is at a critical juncture as regards its development. A continued focus
on balanced excellence needs to be maintained, paying attention to the mix of clinical
demands, teaching and research. Currently heavy clinical loads and teaching commitments
BacteriologyFinalReport03
4
Department of Bacteriology: Review Group Report
tend to dominate what is already a very impressive research track record, given time and staff
resources.
7.2
We strongly advocate as a matter of urgency the provision of at least one additional
non-clinical permanent member of staff, who would reduce teaching loads for the Head of
Department and other staff, and undertake some of the management of the PhD research
programme. In our view it is imperative that the UMT support such a position as soon as
possible.
7.3
There is a need to confirm the Department’s status as a full academic unit with the
appropriate extra resources that this entails given its excellent research potential. What is
particularly needed is greater evidence of support from within Faculty and the UMT. This
also requires a more assertive effort on the part of the Department itself.
7.4
External communications need to be improved upon. There is a need for a more
assertive style of participation in Faculty, UMT and WHB deliberations.
7.5
In general, we were highly impressed with the standard of teaching and instruction. It
is clear there is a culture of teaching that is of a very highest standard.
7.6
Outstanding potential as regards research in particular needs to be nurtured and
prioritised over the coming years. We advocate that one greater focus for expanding the
research effort should be in building up internal University links and synergies with other
units and departments (Microbiology, BMES, etc.).
7.7
In particular we would reiterate the link between staffing issues and the Department’s
research potential. It is vital that the UMT appreciate the need for funding new staff, that can
free senior consultant staff to produce work for journals of international repute. A failure to
provide these resources will be, in effect, reducing the potential for highly significant research
to emerge.
Prof. Hilary Humphreys
Dr. Mary Sheppard
Prof. Emer Colleran
Mr. Brendan Flynn
April 8th 2003
BacteriologyFinalReport03
5
Department of Bacteriology: Review Group Report
Comments on The Methodology of the Review Process
A. The review of two separate, although related, departments was challenging. On reflection,
the review group felt it was better to proceed with two distinct assessment reports for each
department, repeating observations where these applied to both in common.
B. Provision of detailed statistical information appears to be too late for reviewers, where it is
delivered on the day of the review. It requires time to digest and analyse. Moreover, it
requires explanatory descriptive text to for example, explain the basic FTE model of student
funding.
C. Other documents or correspondence, that are not confidential or sensitive, and that include
information about the Department’s plans for the future or request for funding or resources
from the Faculty or the UMT, should be included
D. Key Faculty and University strategy documents should be included with supporting
documentation where these exist. These include any Faculty research plans, University
Strategic Plan, etc.
E. There is a need to examine ways and means of reducing the administrative burden of
producing self-assessment reports and the organisational side of the review group visit for
departments.
F. The review group frequently found themselves awash in paper. We suggest a folder system
would help, allowing reviewers to organise materials more efficiently.
BacteriologyFinalReport03
6