The Review Process

The APEX programme is fortunate in having an experienced, trained and established pool of assessors drawn from across the institution. APEX assessors are all Fellows of the HEA, who have demonstrated an interest in and commitment to their roles as APEX assessors. Assessors must hold the category of Fellowship they are assessing. 

When submitted, two reviewers will review all submissions on a 'double-blind' basis. The reviewers review whether the application has met the requirements for Fellowship and, if they are in agreement that the application meets the standards, it will go to the verification/awards panel.  Where assessors are not able to agree an outcome, the application will be distributed to the assessment team and considered at a subsequent moderation meeting.  Applications are also sent to the external verifier along with a sample of applications from across the categories of Fellowship .

A moderation meeting seeks to:

• Discuss and agree a consensus decision on all borderline applications with input from the External Verifier 

• Highlight examples of good practice 

• Address any procedural issues arising and identify any action required 

• Confirm the applications to go to the External Verifier panel 

Following the moderation meeting the recommendations are considered by the APEX Programme verification/award panel.  This panel  will receive recommendations from assessors of submissions for D1, D2, D3 recognition, and confirm that ‘Fellowship is achieved’.  Applicants are normally informed of the outcomes of the panel within 24 hours.

The verification panels meet at least three times per year. The dates will be aligned with application submission dates. 

At this moderation meeting, the review team can make a specific decision:

• Major Amendments: If the reviewers decide that the submission falls significantly short of meeting the required standard for Fellowship, then the participant will be provided with clear feedback and encouraged to resubmit their entire submission at the next review panel.

• Major amendments would be advised if a significant number of criteria were not met.  For example, there may be insufficient mapping to the PSF dimensions or there is a notable absence of academic literature to help develop the pedagogic rationale for the participant’s approach.

• Minor Amendments: If the reviewers decide that only minor amendments are needed to demonstrate the required standard for Fellowship, the participant can be invited to either: 

• • Resubmit the entirety of the claim with revisions

  • Submit a short supplementary discussion which addresses the shortcomings identified at the moderation meeting

  • Attend a short face-to-face meeting with two reviewers where they will have the opportunity to discuss and reflect on aspects of practice the review panel needed further clarification

  • Submit a short video, where the participant discusses the aspects of practice the review panel needed further clarification on

• Minor amendments would be advised if an additional focus was needed around specific criteria. A common example is further development to demonstrate engagement with K5 and K6.  In the case of minor amendments, revisions constitute small revisions within the overall narrative that don’t warrant a substantiate rewrite.  

The timing of the professional conversations will be aligned to our submission points that are scheduled throughout the year.  Your professional conversation will be conducted by two internal reviewers who have been through appropriate training and standardisation activity.  You will be notified of your review team during the process. A deliberate effort is made to ensure that participants and reviewers are not based in the same Faculty.  Moreover, upon notification of the review team, you have the opportunity to signal to the APEX administrator any potential conflicts of interest or other concerns with the selected reviewer(s).  The administrator will attempt to accommodate and respond to your concerns, reassigning reviewers if necessary.

The professional conversation is recorded and uploaded to Panopto and you are given access so you can review your conversation afterwards. A representative sample of recorded conversations is sent to our External Verifier from across the categories of Fellowship, including all borderline submissions and referrals to be considered at the moderation meeting. Additional access is limited to the administration team, the APEX co-ordinator, and if required moderation panel members. All materials are stored in compliance with relevant University policies and in compliance with GDPR guidelines. All reviewers are asked to respect the confidentiality of all those participating in the conversation process.

After each professional conversation, the reviewers will discuss whether the submission has met the required standard for Fellowship.  If your reviewers collectively agree that the professional conversation meets the required standard, the outcome is forwarded to the Verification and Award Panel.  If the reviewers cannot reach agreement, then your professional conversation, annotated CPD record, and advocate statements will be considered at a moderation meeting. In advance of the moderation meeting, the APEX administrator will complete a moderation summary form for each submission under review which captures the overall decision from the respective reviewers.  The form is also used to formally log the decision of moderation meeting, and any feedback to be provided to you.

At this moderation meeting, the review team can make a specific decision:

• Minor Amendments - if the review team felt that the professional conversation fell just short of meeting the required standard, commensurate with the category of fellowship being applied for, then you can either re-take the professional conversation without joining a cohort or prepare a short, written submission that directly addresses the areas that were not sufficiently covered during the professional conversation.  A professional conversation can be booked at the convenience of the review team, and a decision can be made under Chair’s Action in line with the wider quality assurance procedures for APEX.

• Minor amendments would be advised if an additional detail was needed around specific criteria. A common example is further development to demonstrate engagement with K5 and K6.

• Major Amendments - if the review team felt that the professional conversation more significantly failed to address the required standard of fellowship, then you will be invited to re-take the professional conversation by joining a new professional conversation cohort.  Alternatively, you may wish to withdraw from the professional conversation route and switch to the written route.  In that instance having attended the compulsory orientation and micro-clinics you submit a draft directly to APEX for review.

Major amendments would be advised if a significant number of criteria were not met during the professional conversation.  For example, there may be insufficient reference to to the PSF dimensions or there is a notable lack of reference to academic literature underpinning the pedagogic rationale for the participant’s approach.