KUHS QAS Standards

Key Area I: INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES (Weightage: 200)

Infrastructure Facilities form the bedrock of any quality educational institution, especially in health sciences. This Key Area, carrying a substantial weightage of 200 points, meticulously examines the physical resources and essential support systems that are in place to facilitate effective teaching, learning, patient care, and overall institutional functioning. It is divided into five core standards, each focusing on a specific aspect of infrastructure.

Standard 1.1: College & Hospital System (As per KUHS norms) - 40 points

This standard is foundational, evaluating the core operational systems that make a health science college and its associated hospital function effectively and safely. Assessors will meticulously check various elements to ensure adherence to KUHS norms and Minimum Standard Requirements (MSR), ensuring the institution possesses the necessary building blocks for quality education and healthcare delivery.

• Bed Strength: The assessment begins with verifying the bed strength of the attached hospital. This isn't just about the number of beds, but whether the institution maintains the bed capacity as mandated by KUHS norms and the MSR specific to each discipline offered. Assessors will refer to official MSR documents to confirm the required numbers are met.

• Bed Occupancy: Beyond just having beds, it's crucial to know if they are utilized effectively. Bed occupancy is examined against KUHS norms, acknowledging that occupancy rates can vary across courses and disciplines. Assessors will delve into hospital records like census reports for the day of inspection and delve into 6-month data from the medical records department. This provides a practical picture of patient load and resource utilization.

• Adequate Clinical and Allied Staff: A functioning hospital needs competent personnel. This measurable point assesses the adequacy of clinical and allied staff. Assessors will verify if staffing levels align with KUHS norms, MSR, and requirements from respective statutory councils (like nursing or pharmacy councils). They will meticulously review HR records – appointment orders, biometric attendance, departmental attendance registers, and even physical headcounts and staff photos. This comprehensive approach ensures sufficient qualified personnel are present for both teaching and patient care.

• Clinical Facilities: The presence of adequate clinical facilities is paramount. Assessors will compare the existing clinical infrastructure against the MSR checklist. They will look for permitted levels of deficiency, understanding minor variations may occur. However, full compliance, where all MSR-mandated clinical facilities are present, will warrant full points.

• Well-functioning Support Facilities: A hospital is more than just patient wards. It requires robust support facilities. This point examines "well-functioning" support services as dictated by state government statutes and MSR. This encompasses a range of critical services, and might not apply uniformly across all disciplines. If applicable (particularly in medical colleges), assessors will verify licenses from government/statutory bodies. Furthermore, they will observe and verify:

  • Laundry: Hygiene, drying facilities, drainage, organized laundry systems, workstation instructions, infection control practices, and breakdown maintenance protocols.

  • Dietary Department: Services provided, specialized diet provisions, medical check-up details for catering personnel, F&B management practices, presence of a qualified dietician, and facilities to accommodate special dietary needs based on patient requirements.

  • Transport: Availability of a mobile clinic, ambulance with life-saving equipment, mobile vans, facilities for patient and dead body transportation, and compliance with statutory transport requirements like driver's licenses and insurance.

  • Mortuary/Cold Storage: Adequate personnel, cold storage capacity, and adherence to infection control practices in mortuary services.

  • Cleaning and Allied Staff Department: Adequate personnel, appropriate cleaning equipment, and established hygiene protocols, including those for maintaining hygiene equipment.

• Bank/Blood Storage Unit: For institutions where applicable (particularly medical colleges), the presence of a functional blood bank/storage unit is vital. Assessors verify if a well-functioning blood bank is present as per state statute and if it holds accreditation from bodies like NABL, demonstrating adherence to quality and safety standards.

• Student-Patient Ratio: This critical metric examines the student-patient ratio over a period of at least six months. Assessors verify, using KUHS norms and statutory council guidelines, that the institution maintains an adequate ratio. They will use hospital census and patient data from the medical records department over a six-month period to calculate and verify this ratio.

• Hospital Information System/Electronic Medical Records (HIS/EMR/HER): In the modern healthcare setting, effective information management is essential. Assessors will verify the presence and functionality of a comprehensive HIS/EMR/HER system, looking for:

  • Implementation and record keeping using EMR/HER systems.

  • Use of Management Software for administrative functions.

  • Full Hospital Information System integration.

  • Training programs for new employees on the HIS/EMR system, verified through training schedules, registers, photos, and protocols.

  • Periodic training for existing staff on system updates and new developments.

  • Local Area Networking (LAN) infrastructure.

  • Cybersecurity measures and password protection for patient data.

  • Established protocols for maintaining confidentiality of patient records.

• Hospital Safety Management: Patient and staff safety is paramount. Assessors examine the hospital's safety management protocols and infrastructure:

  • Presence of Fire and Safety Protocols, verified by review of documented protocols.

  • Employee Training on Fire and Safety, documented through training records.

  • Adequate Number of Fire Extinguishers, observed in relation to fire safety norms and validated by third-party fire audits.

  • Regular Mock Drills, verified by drill records and photographic evidence.

  • Clearly Labeled Exits and their sufficient number, visually inspected.

  • Well-Marked Assembling Areas, observing for clear marking, accessibility, and adequacy of assembly areas during emergencies.

• Biomedical Waste Management: Proper disposal of biomedical waste is essential for infection control and environmental safety. Assessors will review the Biomedical Waste Management systems, verifying:

  • Certificate of Pollution Control Board, ensuring legal compliance.

  • Presence of a functional Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), verified through records, observation, and verification of water recycling if applicable.

  • Waste Collection and Disposal according to BMW standards. Assessors will meticulously verify waste segregation methods, institutional disposal mechanisms, MOUs with external waste agencies if applicable, website reporting of BMW data, protocols to prevent mixing of waste, and registers for daily BMW collection.

Standard 1.2: Building and Land (As per KUHS Norms) - 40 points

This standard shifts focus to the foundational aspects of the institution's physical plant. It looks at the structural integrity, legal compliance, and utility provisions of the buildings and land, ensuring a safe and conducive learning environment as per KUHS norms.

• Approved Building with Local Self Government Number: Legality and approved construction are the starting point. Assessors will verify the approved building plan issued by the Local Self Government (Panchayat, Municipality/Corporation) along with the associated government number. This ensures the buildings are legally constructed and meet safety standards. They will further verify the adequate plinth area as per KUHS/Statutory Council norms and ensure all crucial facilities like classrooms, labs, and libraries are present as per the approved plan. A location map will be observed to confirm the geographical context and appropriateness of the location. Finally, assessors will demand to see a legal document showing tax paid certificate, confirming legal ownership and fiscal responsibility.

• Pollution Control Board Certification: Environmental compliance is crucial. The presence of a Pollution Control Board (PCB) certification will be verified, ensuring the institution operates within environmentally responsible guidelines.

• Built-in Area: The built-in area will be compared against statutory council and KUHS guidelines to verify sufficient space for the institution's operations.

• Water and Electricity Facility: Reliable utilities are indispensable. Assessors will check the water and electricity facilities ensuring:

  • Continuous supply of safe water, visually observed and bills verified.

  • Periodic checking of water safety, validated through safety certificate reviews and water quality testing results.

  • Uninterrupted electricity supply, verified through observation, bill payments, and the presence of generators/inverters as backup power solutions.

  • Solar energy utilization, observing and verifying documents for solar system installations.

  • Overall energy conservation efforts, verified through relevant documentation demonstrating sustainable practices.

• Transport Facility: Accessibility is key. Assessors will check the transport facility, ensuring an adequate number of transport options are available based on the student and staff population. This includes verifying vehicle ownership, driver's licenses, and maintenance records.

• Recreation Facility: Holistic well-being is important. The presence of a recreation facility, encompassing both indoor and outdoor spaces for physical education, will be observed. The assignment of faculty to oversee these activities will be verified through office orders, and documentation of picnics and retreats for staff and students will be checked, demonstrating efforts to provide recreational opportunities.

• Canteen Facility: Access to subsidized and hygienic food is important for student and staff welfare. Assessors will observe if a subsidized canteen is available, and if its operations are hygienic through observations of facilities, pest control, cleaning, utensil hygiene, and waste management practices. Regular medical check-ups for canteen employees and feedback mechanisms will also be verified. Biogas facilities for food waste disposal will be checked to assess environmental consciousness.

• Common Rooms for Boys and Girls: Separate and adequate common rooms with attached washroom facilities for both boys and girls will be visually verified, ensuring comfortable spaces for students' relaxation and social interaction.

• Adequate Toilet Facilities: Sufficient and segregated toilet facilities are a basic necessity. Assessors will verify the adequate number of toilets based on student numbers (referencing MSR), and physically check for separate facilities for boys and girls, as well as for faculty/employees (male and female).

• Stationery Facilities: Basic student needs are also considered. The presence of a stationery shop with readily available and adequate supplies for students and staff will be observed. Assessors may also inquire about mechanisms for raising complaints/suggestions related to stationery, ensuring responsive service provision.

Standard 1.3: Library Facilities - 40 points

The library is the intellectual heart of an educational institution. This standard focuses on ensuring the library is a modern, well-resourced hub for learning and research.

• Automated Library: Modern libraries leverage technology for efficiency. Assessors will verify the level of library automation, checking details of the automation system and the presence of a 'secret number' (likely a system login credential for verification purposes). They will also examine if the lending and borrowing system is digitalized for ease of use and record-keeping. The presence of reference-only material sections is also verified, ensuring dedicated resources for in-depth study.

• Plinth Area as per KUHS Norms: The physical size of the library must be adequate. Assessors will check if the plinth area meets KUHS norms, ensuring sufficient space for resources and users.

• Number of Books, Periodicals, Journals as per KUHS Norms: Quantity and relevance of resources are essential. Assessors will verify if the number of books, periodicals, and journals are adequate as per KUHS norms and MSR. This verification will involve checking actual resources and library registers.

• e-Journals: In today’s academic world, electronic resources are critical. Assessors will verify the number of e-journals available, confirming access to digital research databases.

• Internet Facility and Availability of Software: Modern learning demands digital connectivity and tools. Assessors will confirm the availability of internet facilities and software, including online search capabilities and specialized software (like plagiarism checkers), and verify internet connectivity and bill payments.

• Photocopier Facility: Basic document reproduction access is a practical necessity. The availability of a photocopier facility within the library will be physically verified, ensuring ease of access to printing and photocopying.

• Book/Journal Borrowing System: The efficiency of the borrowing system impacts resource access. Assessors will verify the functionality of the book/journal borrowing system, examining registers and evidence of borrowing activity.

• Gate Register: Library usage is a key indicator of its value. The presence of a gate register and its maintenance will be verified, along with the availability of cumulative monthly reports on library users.

• CDs and e-Learning Facility: Multimedia and digital learning resources enhance engagement. The presence of CDs and e-learning facilities within the library will be visually confirmed.

• 10% Reference Books: Dedicated reference collections support in-depth research. Assessors will verify the presence of a collection dedicated to 10% reference books, ensuring specialized resources are available.

Standard 1.4: Sports and Cultural Facilities - 40 points

This standard broadens the infrastructure assessment to include facilities supporting student and staff well-being beyond academics, recognizing the importance of sports and cultural engagement for holistic development.

• Physical Facilities for Sports (Indoor and Outdoor): Active lifestyles are encouraged. Assessors will verify the presence of adequate physical education facilities, both indoor and outdoor, such as stadiums, grounds, and indoor sports areas, comparing them against MSR guidelines through observation and documentation.

• Logistics (sports items/jersey): Facilities without equipment are insufficient. Assessors will observe if there is a separate room dedicated to student unions and sports materials. They will check for the presence of common sports equipment like jerseys, shot puts, javelins, skipping ropes, balls, badminton sets, and indoor game items, demonstrating logistical support for sports participation.

• Training Available with an Assigned Trainer/Coach: Guidance is essential for skill development. Assessors will verify if there is training available with an assigned trainer or coach. They will check for office orders assigning faculty as in-charge of sports, and confirm the annual conduct of inter-college sports and games activities through certificates, program schedules, and photographic evidence.

• Student Participation in Sports (minimum 5%): Encouragement should translate to engagement. Assessors will verify student participation rates in sports, aiming for a minimum of 5% participation in college annual sports and games meets, using participation lists and photos.

• Medals in Sports Events (KUHS/State/National): Institutional success in sports is a sign of a thriving sports culture. Assessors will verify the institution's achievements, looking for evidence of medals won in sports events at KUHS, State, or National levels, validated by certificates and photos.

• Physical Facilities for Cultural Activities (auditorium): Cultural expression is also key to well-rounded development. Assessors will check for the presence of physical facilities like an auditorium or amphitheater suitable for cultural activities, or if shared campus facilities can be utilized and counted toward this requirement.

• Student Participation in Cultural Events (minimum 5%): Similar to sports, cultural engagement is encouraged. Assessors will verify student participation rates in cultural events, aiming for a minimum 5% participation in college and external cultural events, using participation lists and photos.

• Achievements in Cultural Events: Recognition in cultural domains reflects institutional vibrancy. Assessors will seek evidence of achievements in cultural events, looking for awards and medals won in cultural competitions, backed by certificates and photos.

• Medals in Cultural Events (KUHS/State/National): Similar to sports medals, recognition at higher levels is valued. Assessors will verify if the institution has won medals in cultural events at KUHS, State, or National level, confirming through certificates and photos.

• Hosting of Cultural/Sports Events: Hosting events demonstrates institutional dynamism and organizational capability. Assessors will look for evidence of the institution hosting cultural or sports events of importance, seeking details of event hosting, program schedules, and photos of such events.

Standard 1.5: Hostel Facilities - 40 points

A comfortable and safe hostel environment is vital for students residing away from home, especially in demanding health science programs. This standard focuses on the quality and management of hostel facilities.

• Building as per KUHS Norms: Hostel infrastructure needs to comply with standards. Assessors will verify if the hostel building adheres to KUHS norms through observation and comparison with MSR guidelines.

• Separate Hostel for Men and Women: Basic segregation for privacy and safety is crucial. Assessors will visually verify if there are separate hostel buildings for men and women.

• Housekeeping Facilities as per Norms: Hygiene and cleanliness are paramount in a hostel. Assessors will evaluate housekeeping facilities based on established norms:

  • Adequacy of housekeeping services, observed for overall cleanliness, adherence to Kayakalpa guidelines, linen policies, toilet checklists, and pest control measures.

  • Presence of at least one sweeper per floor, verified by checking personnel availability.

• Water and Electricity Facilities: Basic utilities must be reliably available. Assessors will verify water and electricity facilities ensuring:

  • Adequate and continuous water and electricity supply, visually observed and bills payments verified.

  • Water safety measures, checking for water purifiers, servicing schedules, water quality testing, corrective actions taken (if needed), and safety certificates.

• Generators for Contingencies: Power outages can be disruptive. The availability of generators as an alternate power source for contingencies will be observed.

• Sick Room and Healthcare Facility: Hostel residents need access to basic healthcare. Assessors will check for:

  • Availability of sick rooms for hostel residents, visually confirmed.

  • Presence of washroom facilities within the sick room.

  • Adequate furniture in the sick room for patient comfort.

  • Provision of nutritious diet for sick students, verified through facility checks.

• Student Dining Facility: A hygienic and functional dining area is vital for student well-being. Assessors will examine the student dining facility for:

  • Adequate physical space, verified against MSR.

  • Adequate seating arrangements, also verified against MSR.

  • Proper waste disposal facilities, observed and methods assessed.

  • Safe and clean drinking water facilities, visually verified.

  • Cleanliness and hygiene, observed, along with food service practices.

• Quality Control (Food and Water): Safety of food and water is paramount for hostel residents’ health. Assessors will check for:

  • Food safety measures, verified through safety certificate reviews and food quality check registers.

  • Medical check-up records for personnel handling food, ensuring food handlers are healthy and safe.

• Recreation Facility: Relaxation and leisure are important even in hostels. Assessors will look for the presence of a recreation facility within the hostel, verifying availability of a recreation room and materials for recreation, including indoor games like table tennis or caroms.

• Hostel Management Committee: Effective management ensures smooth hostel operations and student welfare. Assessors will review the Hostel Management Committee and its functionalities by checking:

  • Functioning of the committee for discipline and rule maintenance, evidenced by committee MOMs and documented hostel rules and regulations.

  • Availability of planned and approved menus, verifying planned menus and comparing them with approved menus.

  • Round-the-clock employees to manage daily affairs, verified by personnel lists and biometric attendance.

  • Leave register for inmates, verifying its maintenance.

  • Out-pass and home-pass registers, confirming proper record-keeping for student movements.

  • Routine roll call registers, verifying their implementation for student safety and attendance tracking.

  • Documented rules and regulations for inmates on study time and visitors, ensuring clear guidelines are in place.

Key Area II: TEACHER PROFILE AND TEACHING LEARNING (Weightage: 200)

This Key Area delves into the heart of the institution's academic quality, focusing on the caliber of its teachers and the effectiveness of their teaching methodologies. It's broken down into five Standards, each contributing 40 points to the overall weightage for this Key Area.

Standard 2.1: Teacher Profile (Weightage: 40)

The quality of faculty is directly proportional to the quality of education. This standard assesses the qualifications, experience, and active engagement of the teaching staff, ensuring they are well-equipped to deliver high-quality health science education. It looks beyond just numbers, delving into the qualifications and contributions of the faculty pool.

• 80% Faculty Available as per KUHS Norms: The fundamental aspect of faculty adequacy starts with numbers. This measurable point verifies if the institution has at least 80% of the required faculty positions filled according to KUHS norms. This is not simply a headcount; it’s about ensuring the institution has the minimum necessary teaching staff to cover the curriculum effectively. Assessors will verify this using appointment letters, joining reports, biometric attendance records, regular attendance registers, headcounts, and acquittance registers to confirm faculty presence and positions against KUHS staffing guidelines. The calculated percentage will be of 'faculty available divided by total faculty as per norms, multiplied by 100.'

• 80% Post Graduate Faculty: Beyond basic qualification, advanced degrees indicate deeper subject matter expertise. This point assesses if at least 80% of the faculty hold post-graduate qualifications. This benchmark ensures a substantial portion of the teaching staff possesses advanced knowledge in their respective fields. Assessors will verify this using lists of PG faculty and total faculty, calculating 'Total PG faculty divided by Total faculty, multiplied by 100'.

• 10% Doctoral/M.Phil Faculty: To further elevate academic rigor, the presence of doctoral and M.Phil degree holders is evaluated. This point assesses if at least 10% of the faculty hold doctoral or M.Phil degrees. This signifies a commitment to research-oriented teaching and the presence of faculty capable of guiding advanced research and scholarly activities. Assessors will again use lists of Doctoral/M.Phil faculty and total faculty, calculating 'Total PhD or MPhil faculty divided by total faculty, multiplied by 100.'

• Faculty Representation in KUHS Academic Bodies: Active participation in the university's academic processes demonstrates faculty engagement and contribution beyond their own institution. This measurable point assesses faculty representation in KUHS Academic Bodies. This indicates the institution's faculty are recognized and contribute at the university level, bringing valuable experience and perspective. Assessors will verify the number of faculty members with representation in KUHS academic bodies, calculated as 'Total Faculty having representation divided by total faculty, multiplied by 100'. This will be verified through appointment letters and attendance certificates for KUHS academic body meetings.

• Teachers’ Participation in University Examination Works: Faculty involvement in university examinations is crucial for maintaining standards and ensuring fair assessments. This point assesses the extent of teachers' participation in University Examination Works. This signifies faculty commitment to the broader university assessment system. Assessors will verify the percentage of faculty qualified and participating in university exam-related work, calculated as 'Total Faculty qualified for exam related work divided by total faculty, multiplied by 100'. Qualification and participation will be validated through appointment letters and attendance certificates.

• Teachers’ Participation in KUHS Inspection for Affiliation and Scrutiny: Beyond examinations, faculty contribution to university processes like affiliation inspections and scrutiny indicates their broader engagement with the KUHS system. This point measures the extent of teachers' participation in KUHS Inspection for Affiliation and Scrutiny. This showcases the institution's faculty contribute to maintaining quality across affiliated colleges. Assessors will verify the percentage of faculty appointed as inspectors, calculated as 'Total faculty appointed as inspectors divided by total faculty multiplied by 100', using appointment orders and training attendance/certificate records.

• Teachers Guiding Student Projects: Faculty involvement in guiding student projects is crucial for fostering research aptitude and practical application of knowledge. This point evaluates teachers guiding student projects. This indicates mentorship and research supervision capacity. Assessors will verify the number of teachers qualified as research guides (calculated as 'Teachers qualified as guides divided by total faculty, multiplied by 100') and cross-reference this with the approved guide list from KUHS.

• Teachers Attending Career Progression/Refresher Courses/Orientation Courses/Continuing Education Programs of KUHS and other organizations: Continuous professional development is vital in the rapidly evolving field of health sciences. This point examines teachers attending career progression, refresher courses, orientation courses, and continuing education programs offered by KUHS and other organizations. This highlights institutional support for faculty development and keeping knowledge and skills current. Assessors will verify the number of programs attended by faculty and the average number of programs attended per faculty member annually. This will be checked using lists of faculty attendees, attendance certificates, and program brochures.

• Paper Presentation for Conferences and Seminars: Faculty engagement in conferences and seminars and paper presentations demonstrates their contribution to the field and dissemination of knowledge. This point assesses faculty paper presentations at conferences and seminars. This indicates research activity and dissemination of scholarly work. Assessors will verify the percentage of faculty presenting scientific papers at conferences using conference brochures, certificates, and related documentation.

• Faculty as Resource Person: When faculty are invited as resource persons outside their own institution, it reflects their expertise and recognition within the field. This point evaluates faculty acting as resource persons. This highlights individual faculty expertise and contribution to the wider academic community. Assessors will verify instances of faculty acting as resource persons using invitation letters and certificates.

Standard 2.2: Teaching Methodology (Weightage: 40)

Effective pedagogy is as crucial as faculty expertise. This standard assesses the institution's adoption of contemporary and student-centered teaching methodologies, moving beyond traditional lecture-based approaches to more engaging and effective learning experiences.

• 80% of Teachers Using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools in teaching-learning: In today’s digital age, ICT integration in education is essential. This point measures the percentage of teachers effectively using ICT tools in teaching and learning. This indicates the institution is embracing technology to enhance pedagogy. Assessors will verify if at least 80% of faculty are utilizing ICT, calculating the percentage as 'Teachers using ICT enabled lecturers divided by total faculty multiplied by 100'. This will be checked using records of ICT facility availability and the number of faculty who use ICT-enabled lectures, along with examples of ICT-based teaching materials prepared by teachers.

• 10% of Teachers Using Problem-Based Learning (PBL)/Competency-Based Learning (CBL): Moving beyond passive learning, active learning methodologies like PBL and CBL are crucial. This point assesses the percentage of teachers using PBL/CBL. This signifies a move towards student-centered, application-oriented learning. Assessors will verify if at least 10% of faculty are using PBL/CBL, calculated as 'Teachers using PBL divided by total no: of teachers multiplied by 100'. This will be validated through the number of faculty using PBL/CBL, PBL/CBL materials prepared by teachers, and any documentation showing faculty training in these methodologies.

• 10% of Teachers Using Self-Directed Learning (SDL)/Peer Teaching/Reflective Learning: Developing independent learning skills is vital for health professionals. This point evaluates the percentage of teachers using SDL, Peer Teaching, and Reflective Learning methodologies. This indicates a focus on developing students' self-learning capabilities and collaborative learning approaches. Assessors will verify if at least 10% of faculty use these methodologies, calculating it as 'Teachers using SDL or PT or RL divided by total no: of teachers multiplied by 100'. Evidence will be checked through the number of faculty using these methods, course materials developed for SDL, and documentation of any faculty training in these approaches.

• 10% of Teachers Using Simulation-Based Teaching: Simulation is increasingly important in health sciences education, allowing for safe practice and skill development. This point assesses the percentage of teachers using Simulation-Based Teaching. This signifies adoption of modern, practice-oriented training methods. Assessors will verify if at least 10% of faculty use simulation, calculated as 'Teachers using Simulation divided by total faculty multiplied by 100'. Verification includes checking the number of faculty using simulation, simulation training attendance records, availability of simulation course material, and the presence of simulation facilities.

• Proper and Timely Conduct of Internal Evaluation: Regular and well-organized internal assessments are crucial for monitoring student progress and providing timely feedback. This point evaluates the proper and timely conduct of internal evaluations. This ensures assessments are well-planned, executed, and contribute to student learning. Assessors will verify if internal evaluations are conducted as scheduled and adhered to, using academic calendars, timetables reflecting internal assessments, and attendance registers that document internal evaluation participation.

• Student-Centric Learning Enhancement Methods: Institutions should actively seek to enhance student learning experiences. This point assesses Student Centric Learning Enhancement Methods employed by the institution. This highlights commitment to creating a supportive and enriching learning environment. Assessors will look for evidence of student-centric approaches such as extended library timings, availability of internet and Wi-Fi on campus, and special programs for slow and advanced learners, verified through library attendance registers, internet bill payments, and learning assessment registers for special programs.

Standard 2.3: Learning Application (Weightage: 40)

Teaching is only effective if knowledge is applied and learning is demonstrable. This standard evaluates how effectively the institution facilitates the application of theoretical knowledge, reinforces learning, and monitors student progress.

• Time-bound Student Feedback on Theory and Practical Teaching and on Assignments to Students: Timely feedback is critical for learning and improvement. This point assesses the implementation of time-bound student feedback mechanisms. This ensures students receive timely and constructive feedback on their learning and performance. Assessors will verify if the institution has academic policy manuals outlining timeframes for feedback and check examples of corrected assignments with feedback and dates to ensure policies are implemented. Feedback is expected within 5 days of submission of an assignment.

• Pass Percentage per Year (more than 50%): A fundamental measure of learning effectiveness is student success. This measurable point examines the pass percentage per year. This provides a general indicator of student learning outcomes and the effectiveness of teaching programs. Assessors will verify if the pass percentage consistently exceeds 50%, calculated as 'Number of students passed divided by number appeared, multiplied by 100', using lists of students appearing for exams and KUHS published results.

• No. of Working Days per Year Excluding Examination, Study Leave, Holidays as per University Norms (minimum 220 days): Sufficient instructional time is essential for adequate curriculum coverage. This point verifies if the institution maintains the required number of working days per year according to university norms, excluding exam periods, study leave, and holidays, with a minimum of 220 working days. This ensures adequate instructional time is dedicated to learning. Assessors will verify this using academic calendars and documented policies for compensating for lost days.

• Only < 2% of Dropouts from Course: Student retention indicates institutional support and program effectiveness. This point examines the percentage of dropouts from the course, aiming for less than 2%. This reflects student satisfaction and the institution’s ability to retain students in their programs. Assessors will compare permanent registers with university convocation lists to verify dropout rates.

• Special Programs for Advanced Learners: Catering to diverse learning needs includes nurturing advanced students. This point assesses the presence and quality of special programs for advanced learners. This signifies a commitment to challenging and extending high-achieving students. Assessors will look for program outlines and content, schedules for implementation, and feedback from advanced students to evaluate the depth and effectiveness of these programs. Learning assessment registers and lists of participating students will also be checked.

• Peer/Participatory Learning: Collaborative learning enhances understanding and builds teamwork skills. This point evaluates the implementation of peer and participatory learning strategies. This indicates a move towards interactive and collaborative learning environments. Assessors will seek evidence of peer/participatory teaching methods, including schedules, attendance records, and student feedback.

• Self-Learning: Fostering independent learning is a key goal of higher education. This point examines initiatives promoting self-learning. This highlights a commitment to developing lifelong learning skills in students. Assessors will verify initiatives like library gate registers, provision of additional reading materials by teachers, and attendance records for library usage, demonstrating promotion of self-directed study.

• Presentations in Seminar/Journal Club: Presenting in seminars and journal clubs develops communication and critical thinking skills. This point assesses the presence and effectiveness of seminars and journal clubs for student presentations. This indicates opportunities for students to present work, engage in discussion, and refine their communication skills. Assessors will verify program schedules, reflection in timetables, presentation content files, and assessments of student presentations.

• Debates/Quizzes: Interactive learning methods like debates and quizzes enhance engagement and knowledge retention. This point evaluates the use of debates and quizzes in teaching. This shows adoption of varied and engaging teaching strategies. Assessors will look for documented use of quizzes and debates, participation records, the number of courses incorporating these strategies, and supporting materials like program schedules, photos, and certificates.

• Journaling/Posters: Reflective learning and visual communication are valuable skills. This point examines the use of journaling and posters as learning and assessment tools. This signifies diverse methods of learning and assessment. Assessors will verify if courses utilize journaling and poster presentations, reviewing sample student documents, program schedules, photos, certificates, and lists of relevant courses.

Standard 2.4: Student Assessment (Weightage: 40)

Fair, valid, and comprehensive assessment is crucial for measuring learning outcomes and ensuring academic integrity. This standard focuses on the methods and instruments used to assess student learning.

• Minimum 3 Sessional Exams: Regular formative assessments are vital for tracking student progress. This measurable point verifies the conduct of a minimum of 3 sessional exams. This ensures frequent assessment and feedback opportunities throughout the course. Assessors will verify this through academic calendars, exam timetables, attendance registers, and notices to students.

• Model Examination: Preparing students for the final university exams is essential. The conduct of a model examination similar to the university exam format is evaluated. This practice prepares students for the format and rigor of the final examinations. Assessors will verify the conduct of model exams using academic calendars, exam timetables, attendance registers, notices to students, model question papers, and answer sheets.

• Clinical Evaluation: In health sciences, clinical skills are as important as theoretical knowledge. The presence of a robust system for clinical evaluation is assessed. This ensures clinical competence is rigorously assessed in practical settings. Assessors will verify policy manuals outlining clinical evaluation procedures, evaluation forms used, and clinical plans reflecting evaluation schedules.

• OSCE/OSPE (Objective Structured Clinical/Practical Examination): OSCEs and OSPEs are gold standards for objective assessment of clinical and practical skills. The use of OSCE/OSPE methods will be verified, particularly for relevant courses. This highlights the use of standardized and objective assessment methods for clinical skills. Assessors will check for the number of courses using OSCE/OSPE, scenarios and evaluation methods, OSCE/OSPE checklists, OSCE station setups in labs, and OSCE scores and improvement plans.

• Question Bank for Each Subject: Well-structured question banks are vital resources for both teaching and assessment. The presence of a question bank for each subject will be verified. This ensures availability of a comprehensive question repository for learning and assessment. Assessors will check departmental and main library question files.

• Assignment as per KUHS Syllabus: Assessments must align with the curriculum. Assessors will verify if assignments are aligned with the KUHS syllabus, ensuring assessment is curriculum-relevant. Verification will involve student logbooks, assignment files, and student feedback on assignment relevance.

• Post-Examination Evaluation: Post-exam analysis is essential for improving future assessments and teaching. This point assesses post-examination evaluation processes. This ensures continuous improvement of assessment methods and teaching strategies based on exam performance analysis. Assessors will look for documents relating to question paper analysis, including item analysis and answer keys.

• Pass Percentage: Overall student success is a key indicator of program effectiveness. The pass percentage achieved by students is considered as a measure of overall learning outcome. Assessors will re-verify pass percentages using lists of students appearing for exams and KUHS published results.

• Examination Automated Process: Technology can enhance efficiency and transparency in examination processes. Assessors will check for the automation of examination processes. This highlights the use of technology to streamline and improve exam management. Policy manuals for exam office automation, made available to all staff, will be reviewed through observation in the exam office.

• Adherence to KUHS Examination Manual: Compliance with university guidelines ensures standardization and fairness. Assessors will verify adherence to the KUHS Examination Manual. This ensures the institution follows standardized examination procedures as defined by the university. Documents relating to exam conduction, maintenance of the exam office infrastructure and logistics will be reviewed along with observation of the infrastructure and examination registers.

Standard 2.5: Student Assessment Process (Weightage: 40)

Beyond the methods and instruments, the processes surrounding student assessment are equally important for fairness, transparency, and efficient management. This standard focuses on the systems in place to manage student assessments.

• Exam Scrutiny Cell: To address student queries and ensure transparency, a dedicated mechanism is needed. The presence of an Exam Scrutiny Cell will be verified. This ensures a system for addressing student concerns about assessment and maintaining transparency. Assessors will check for office space dedicated to the scrutiny cell, the presence of a scrutiny committee, terms of reference for the committee, and scrutiny registers.

• Schedule of Examinations: Well-communicated and adhered-to exam schedules are vital for student planning and organization. The presence of a clear Schedule of Examinations will be verified. This ensures exam schedules are well-planned, communicated and adhered to. Assessors will check timetables, policies for student information dissemination, and academic calendars.

• Internal Examination Policy and Process: Clear policies and procedures for internal assessments ensure consistency and fairness. Assessors will examine the institution's Internal Examination policy and process. This ensures internal assessments are conducted fairly and transparently. Verification will involve reviewing examination policy manuals and IA (Internal Assessment) registers.

• Internal Examination Question Paper Design on Par with University Regulations: Internal exams should be aligned with the standards expected by the university for final exams. Assessors will verify if internal examination question paper design aligns with university regulations. This ensures internal assessments are appropriately rigorous and aligned with university standards. Question paper files for each subject will be reviewed to ensure they are designed according to university guidelines.

• Students’ Attendance Monitoring System: Regular attendance is a key indicator of student engagement. Assessors will examine the Students’ Attendance Monitoring System. This ensures a robust system is in place for tracking and managing student attendance. Daily attendance records, subject-wise attendance, monthly feedback to students on their attendance, and associated documentation will be verified.

• Transcript Generation and Maintenance: Efficient and accurate transcript generation is essential for academic record-keeping. The system for Transcript Generation and Maintenance will be assessed. This ensures a reliable system is in place for creating and managing student transcripts. Approved transcript formats and policies for issuing transcripts will be reviewed.

• Assignment Feedback on Time: Timely feedback on assignments promotes student learning and improvement. The institution's policy and practice of providing assignment feedback on time will be verified. This ensures timely and constructive feedback to students on their assignment work. Policies on assignment feedback and sample assignments will be reviewed.

• Transparent System of Internal Examination: Transparency builds student trust and confidence in the assessment process. The presence of a Transparent System of Internal Examination will be evaluated. This ensures students understand the internal assessment process and its transparency. IA conduction policy manuals and student interviews will be used to verify the system's transparency.

• Declaration of Internal Examination Result within 7 Working Days: Prompt declaration of results allows for timely feedback and action. Assessors will verify if internal examination results are declared within 7 working days, confirming adherence to this timeline through IA conduction policy manuals and student interviews.

• Outcome Analysis: Analyzing exam outcomes is crucial for continuous improvement. The presence of a system for Outcome Analysis of assessments will be verified. This ensures the institution analyzes assessment outcomes for insights and improvements. The presence and activities of the Exam Scrutiny committee, and records of result analysis conducted by concerned faculty will be examined.

Key Area III: CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING (Weightage: 100).

This section moves from evaluating faculty and teaching methods to examining how the curriculum is put into practice. It focuses on the processes and mechanisms institutions employ to ensure the curriculum is effectively delivered, monitored, and continuously improved. While carrying a weightage of 100 points, it is a critical area ensuring the intended curriculum translates into actual learning experiences for students. It is divided into five Standards, each worth 20 points.

Key Area III: CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING (Weightage: 100)

Curriculum Implementation Monitoring is about ensuring the planned curriculum isn't just a document, but a living, breathing entity that is actively delivered, assessed, and improved. This Key Area examines the systems institutions have in place to monitor and enhance curriculum delivery, focusing on its alignment with university guidelines and responsiveness to student needs and feedback. It’s broken down into five standards, each carrying a weightage of 20 points.

Standard 3.1: Syllabus of the University (Weightage: 20)

The university syllabus is the foundation upon which all teaching and learning activities are built. This standard verifies the institution's adherence to and effective delivery of the KUHS syllabus, ensuring students are receiving education that aligns with the university's prescribed curriculum and standards.

• Syllabus of university followed: The starting point is to confirm that the institution actually utilizes and makes readily available the official KUHS syllabus. This is a fundamental check to ensure alignment with the university's academic framework. Assessors will seek evidence that the university syllabus is readily accessible to both faculty and students. This includes verifying if copies are available for reference in the library, and conducting interviews with faculty and students to confirm their awareness and usage of the syllabus.

• Comprehensive Coverage of KUHS Syllabus in Theory and Practicals: Simply possessing the syllabus isn't enough; it needs to be taught comprehensively. This measurable point assesses the coverage of the entire KUHS syllabus, both in theoretical aspects and practical applications. This ensures students are exposed to the full breadth and depth of the prescribed curriculum. Assessors will examine master plans and academic calendars as key pieces of evidence. A well-maintained master plan should detail the planned coverage of the KUHS syllabus throughout the academic year, both for theory and practical components. The academic calendar should also reflect this comprehensive coverage, aligning with the master plan. Furthermore, assessors will look at teaching records, specifically noting if faculty have marked topics covered in attendance registers or faculty workbooks, cross-referencing this with topics mentioned in the KUHS syllabus to ensure comprehensive coverage. Faculty and student interviews will also be conducted to gain qualitative insights on syllabus coverage, alongside reviewing the schedule of unit tests and sessional examinations which should be based on the syllabus.

• Timely Completion of Topics in Theory and Completion of Lab and Clinical Practice: Curriculum coverage must also be timely to ensure students are prepared for assessments and progression. This point assesses the timely completion of syllabus topics, in both theory and practical components. This ensures the curriculum is delivered within the allocated time frame, allowing for adequate learning and preparation. Assessors will primarily rely on student interviews, gathering representative samples from different batches to understand their perception of topic completion timeliness. They will also verify master timetables and class completion records to see if planned schedules are being met and look for revision timetables, indicating contingency plans for any delays. Furthermore, they will check master rotation schedules for clinical postings or lab training to ensure these practical components are being completed as planned and in a timely manner.

Standard 3.2: Curriculum Frame Work (Weightage: 20)

The curriculum framework is the structural blueprint for the entire program, outlining its philosophy, intended outcomes, and organizational elements. This standard evaluates the robustness and clarity of the curriculum framework that guides the institution's program.

• Curriculum Delivery Document: A well-defined curriculum needs a documented framework. This measurable point assesses the presence and quality of a Curriculum Delivery Document. This document should articulate the institution's approach to curriculum delivery and be a guiding resource. Assessors will verify if core competencies are clearly prescribed within the curriculum framework. This includes checking if the framework is well-developed, based on the institution's vision, mission, and philosophy. It should specify the model of curriculum framework adopted and clearly list core competencies, ideally published on the website, student handbook, or course books. Finally, they'll check if these core competencies are explained and elaborated in the framework documentation. They will also confirm that the intended outcomes of each program are clearly listed in the developed curriculum, specifying the objectives of each course/subject and their expected learning outcomes, and if documentation is available to show how these outcomes are communicated to students.

• Curriculum Delivery Plan - Adherence to Academic Calendar, Master Plan, Unit Plan, Lesson Plan, Time Table with Assigned Faculty: A curriculum framework needs to be operationalized through a concrete delivery plan. This measurable point assesses the institution’s adherence to a structured curriculum delivery plan. This ensures a systematic approach to curriculum delivery, with clear timelines, faculty responsibilities, and well-defined plans at different levels of granularity. Assessors will verify the availability of a written academic calendar prepared in advance. The calendar should encompass the minimum duration of the program, be accessible to faculty, displayed on notice boards, and clearly mark specific events. Documents like master plans, unit plans, lesson plans, timetables and examination schedules (for unit and sessional exams) should be examined to ensure they are all consistent with the academic calendar. Time tables will be checked to see if they clearly indicate assigned faculty and their actual teaching hours. Finally, assessors will cross-verify a sample of class attendance registers with the timetable for a few faculty members to ensure that faculty signatures are present and align with the scheduled teaching hours.

• Work Assignment (Theory, Clinical, Lab, Weekly Work Plan): To ensure workload is distributed and faculty activities are planned, structured work assignments are necessary. This measurable point assesses the presence of well-defined work assignments for faculty. This ensures faculty workload is planned, documented, and encompasses teaching, clinical work, lab work, and other responsibilities. Assessors will look for well-written work assignment documents maintained by each faculty member. These documents should detail teaching, clinical, lab, and other assigned tasks, including university-related works. Additional documents to verify include timetables, faculty assignment books or registers, university orders or duty certificates for university works, and faculty work report registers.

• Program/Course Outcome Statements Specified: Clarity on expected learning outcomes is crucial for both students and faculty. This measurable point assesses if program and course outcome statements are clearly specified. This ensures that learning goals are well-defined, communicated, and guide curriculum delivery and assessment. Assessors will check if core competencies are clearly written and exhibited on the institution’s website. They will also verify the website for objectives for each course and their corresponding outcome statements, confirming these are readily available online.

• Curriculum Monitoring Committee: Continuous improvement requires oversight and monitoring. The presence and effectiveness of a Curriculum Monitoring Committee are evaluated. This ensures a dedicated body is responsible for overseeing curriculum implementation, identifying areas for improvement, and ensuring ongoing relevance and quality. Assessors will examine the following evidence to verify a well-functioning committee:

  • Register for the curriculum committee.

  • Office orders for appointment of committee members.

  • Minutes book of the Curriculum Committee.

  • Signatures of members present in curriculum committee meeting records.

  • Reports of curriculum committee meetings.

  • Evidence of student representation in the committee.

  • Agenda statements for meetings.

  • Attendance records showing members present for meetings.

  • Appointment of program coordinators for each program and related MOMs, office orders, and communication documents.

  • Periodic reports (timely/monthly) from program coordinators.

  • Monthly reports from class coordinators.

  • Minutes and action taken reports from curriculum committee meetings, checking for MOMs and documentation of Action Taken Reports (ATR) for each MOM, indicating review and approval processes.

Standard 3.3: Curriculum Enrichment Measures (Weightage: 20)

A static curriculum may become outdated quickly. This standard evaluates the institution's initiatives to enrich the curriculum beyond the basic syllabus, ensuring its relevance, contemporary nature, and responsiveness to evolving needs of the health sector and students’ future employability.

• Add-on Courses: Providing value-added learning experiences beyond the core curriculum is essential. This measurable point assesses the suitability and quality of add-on courses offered. This signifies an effort to go beyond the standard syllabus and offer specialized knowledge and skills, enhancing graduate employability. Assessors will verify the suitability of add-on courses by examining the syllabus, considering if it contributes to improved employability. They will also check documents related to the vision, mission, and philosophy underpinning the add-on course, assignments and examinations, teacher lesson plans, student handbooks, and the presence of a skill enhancement component within the course. Well-framed syllabi and academic plans are expected, aligned with the criteria outlined in 3.1.5 (Add-on Courses) and its verifiable indicators. Assessors will also cross-reference the faculty profile against the requirements for handling the add-on courses, ensuring adequate and efficient faculty with relevant qualifications and experience certificates are in place to deliver these courses effectively.

• Value-Added Courses: Curriculum enrichment can also focus on broader values and societal relevance. This point examines Value Added Courses that go beyond technical skills. This signifies an effort to broaden students' perspectives, enrich their understanding of societal norms, and foster humanistic values. Assessors will evaluate if the value-added courses contribute to enriching humanity and if they are aligned with societal norms. This will be verified by looking at the course objectives and content, and by examining the syllabus to find enrichment of graduates beyond technical knowledge.

• Curriculum Planning Workshop: Curriculum development is a collaborative and evolving process. The institution's engagement in curriculum planning workshops, conferences, or symposiums is assessed. This indicates a proactive approach to curriculum development, seeking external input and staying abreast of advancements in pedagogy. Assessors will verify participation in such events by reviewing brochures and conference report files, verifying certificates of participation, and checking for credit points awarded for participation.

• External Experts Invited: External perspectives can enrich curriculum development and ensure relevance to real-world needs. This point assesses the institution’s practice of inviting external experts for curriculum discussions. This signifies openness to external input and a desire to leverage expertise beyond the institution. Assessors will verify this by checking details about external experts invited, reports of discussions held, photos and videos documenting these discussions, and through faculty interviews to gain insights into the impact of expert input.

• Innovation/Publications: The ultimate output of curriculum development should be innovation and scholarly contributions. This measurable point assesses innovation and publications related to curriculum, teaching strategy, evaluation, and student assessment. This highlights the institution's contribution to the field of pedagogy and curriculum development. Assessors will verify the presence of at least two publications related to curriculum innovation, teaching strategy, evaluation, or student assessment, produced in the last academic year. They will verify lists of publications and examine the actual publication documents to confirm relevance and quality.

Standard 3.4: Academic Monitoring Cell (Weightage: 20)

Continuous monitoring and review are crucial for effective curriculum implementation. This standard examines the Academic Monitoring Cell (AMC) – a dedicated mechanism for ongoing quality assurance in academic processes.

• Academic Monitoring Cell: This standard checks the structure, function, and effectiveness of the Academic Monitoring Cell (AMC). This ensures a dedicated mechanism is in place to continuously monitor and improve academic processes. Assessors will verify:

  • If the AMC is well-functioning, with a senior faculty member assigned as in-charge. This will be validated by verifying members of the AMC, AMC meeting minutes, and the experience certificate of the faculty in-charge.

  • If the AMC functions according to the KUHS handbook on AMC, verifying the availability of the handbook, and confirming if all documented procedures and processes are being followed and kept up-to-date.

  • If all program coordinators are members of the AMC, verifying membership lists, lists of program coordinators, and meeting minutes to ensure comprehensive representation and involvement.

• Minutes of the Committee Meeting and Corrective Action: Monitoring is only valuable if it leads to action and improvement. This point assesses the effectiveness of the AMC in generating meeting minutes and implementing corrective actions. This ensures that monitoring leads to tangible improvements in curriculum delivery and academic quality. Assessors will check if minutes of all meetings are available, along with Action Taken Reports (ATRs) for each set of minutes, indicating a closed-loop system of monitoring and response, with a minimum of 3 meetings per year.

• Regular Updating of Various Curriculum Plans: Curricula must be dynamic and responsive to advancements and needs. This point assesses the regular updating of curriculum plans. This ensures that the curriculum remains current, relevant, and incorporates the latest advancements in the field and pedagogical practices. Assessors will verify if curriculum plans reflect changes and advancements in pedagogy and if curriculum plans have adequate flexibility to meet contingencies. Evidence will be sought from interdisciplinary courses, inter-departmental courses, meeting minutes of the curriculum committee discussing updates, and review of lesson plans and course plans to demonstrate regular updates and responsiveness.

• Availability of Curriculum Framework: A readily accessible curriculum framework ensures transparency and understanding of the program’s design. This point verifies the availability of the curriculum framework. This ensures the curriculum's overarching design, vision, mission, and philosophy are well-documented and readily accessible. Assessors will check if a well-planned and written curriculum framework is available, depicting the vision, mission, and philosophy of the institution, and aligning with government and societal requirements and local needs. The core curriculum itself will be examined, as well as documented vision, mission, philosophy, and program/course outcomes.

• UG/PG Program Monitoring Committee: Program-specific monitoring is essential for addressing the unique needs of different academic levels. This point assesses the presence of separate UG and PG Program Monitoring Committees. This ensures focused monitoring and improvement tailored to the specific needs of undergraduate and postgraduate programs. Assessors will verify if separate coordinators are appointed for UG and PG programs and will review their reports on the courses, along with faculty interviews to understand program-specific monitoring processes.

Standard 3.5: Feedback on Syllabus and Curriculum (Weightage: 20)

Continuous improvement relies heavily on feedback from various stakeholders. This standard examines the institution’s mechanisms for collecting and utilizing feedback on the syllabus and curriculum to ensure ongoing relevance and responsiveness.

• Feedback on Syllabus and Curriculum - Student: Student feedback is paramount in shaping effective curriculum. This measurable point assesses the system for gathering student feedback on the syllabus and curriculum. This ensures student perspectives are considered in curriculum improvement processes. Assessors will verify that continuous feedback is collected from students after each year of study and from outgoing students as well.

• Feedback on Syllabus and Curriculum - Faculty (Internal/External): Faculty are key stakeholders in curriculum delivery and refinement. This measurable point assesses the system for gathering faculty feedback (both internal and external) on the syllabus and curriculum. This ensures faculty perspectives and expertise are used to improve the curriculum. Assessors will verify if periodic feedback is collected from faculty handling each course, including both internal faculty and potentially external examiners or experts. Evidence for corrective measures, if any, will be sought across both student and faculty feedback channels. For student feedback, assessors will look for minutes of curriculum committee meetings, college council meetings, and grievance redressal cell meetings, and ATRs documenting actions taken based on feedback. For faculty feedback, minutes of faculty meetings and associated ATRs will be examined. For both student and faculty feedback, assessors will also check for the "Periodic feedback from faculty who are handling each course" and "Evidence for corrective measures". For the former, they will verify the feedback from course coordinators and conduct faculty interviews. For the latter, they will examine minutes of faculty meetings and ATRs.

• Feedback on Syllabus and Curriculum - Alumni: Alumni perspectives provide valuable insights into the long-term relevance and effectiveness of the curriculum in preparing graduates for their careers. This point assesses the system for gathering alumni feedback on the syllabus and curriculum. This ensures the curriculum's long-term effectiveness and relevance to graduates' professional experiences are considered. Assessors will verify annual feedback collection from alumni to understand their perspectives on the program and areas for improvement. Documents such as alumni feedback forms, levels of satisfaction expressed in feedback, minutes of alumni executive meetings, and availability of feedback forms on the institution’s website will be examined.

• Feedback on Syllabus and Curriculum - Employer/Hospital: Employers and hospitals provide critical insights into the practical skills and knowledge needed in the workforce. This point assesses the system for gathering employer/hospital feedback on the syllabus and curriculum. This ensures the curriculum is aligned with the needs of the healthcare sector and prepares graduates for workplace demands. Assessors will verify periodic feedback collection from employers using documents like employer feedback forms and assessments of satisfaction levels. For both alumni and employer/hospital feedback, assessors will check for "Report of suitable action taken" and "Report of recommendations and action taken reports" respectively. For both, meeting minutes and ATRs documenting actions taken in response to feedback will be examined.

Key Area IV: QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM in detail, presenting it in a descriptive narrative format, free of tables. This key area, holding a weightage of 100 points, is at the heart of the entire accreditation process. It delves into the institution's internal mechanisms and commitment to ensuring and continually improving quality across all its operations. It's divided into five standards, each contributing 20 points to the total weightage for this key area.

Key Area IV: QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM (Weightage: 100)

A robust Quality Assurance System is not just a set of procedures; it’s a fundamental organizational culture. This Key Area examines the institution’s commitment to quality, the structures it has established, and the processes it employs for continuous self-assessment, improvement, and accountability. It’s divided into five standards, each designed to evaluate different facets of this system.

Standard 4.1: Quality Assurance Unit (Weightage: 20)

A dedicated Quality Assurance Unit (QAU) is the engine driving the institution's commitment to quality enhancement. This standard assesses the existence, structure, and operational effectiveness of this vital unit. It’s about ensuring there’s a dedicated and functional body responsible for quality assurance.

• Institutional Quality Assurance Unit: The very first step is confirming the presence of a formally established and functioning Institutional Quality Assurance Unit (IQAC). This unit serves as the focal point for all quality-related initiatives. Assessors will verify this by examining office proceedings related to the IQAC, seeking evidence of its formal establishment. This includes an office circular outlining the appointment of a chairperson, coordinator, and members of the IQAC, demonstrating official recognition and mandate. They will also look for the institution's Quality Manual, which should detail the QAU’s scope, functions, and operational procedures. A Yearly report from the QAU will be expected, showcasing the unit's activities and achievements over the past year. An Action plan outlining future QA initiatives should also be available. Minutes of Meetings (MoM) of the IQAC will be scrutinized to understand the unit's activities, discussions, and decision-making processes. In essence, assessors are seeking evidence of a formal, recognized, and actively operating QAU.

• Accreditation by other agencies: An outward sign of a strong QA system is often recognized by external accreditation bodies. This point looks at Accreditation obtained from other recognized agencies. This demonstrates external validation of the institution's quality standards by reputable accreditation bodies beyond KUHS. Assessors will look for documentation of accreditations received from bodies like NABH (for hospitals), ISO (for quality management), NABL (for labs), NQAS, KASH, JCI (Joint Commission International, especially for hospitals), or LAQSHYA. Verification will involve examining the actual accreditation certificates if any, as these serve as tangible proof of external validation.

• Quality Policy with Objectives: A QA system needs to be guided by a clear and publicly communicated policy. The presence and visibility of a Quality Policy with defined objectives will be assessed. This ensures that the institution's commitment to quality is articulated, publicly declared, and guides all its activities. Assessors will look for a documented quality policy, displayed prominently in strategic locations within the institution, ensuring it is visible to all stakeholders. The policy should clearly outline quality objectives, making the institution's quality aspirations transparent and measurable.

• Workshops and Conferences/Seminars by Quality Assurance Cell for Employees: A QAU should actively promote quality awareness and training within the institution. This measurable point evaluates the QAU’s activities in conducting Workshops and Conferences/Seminars for employees on quality assurance. This demonstrates a proactive approach by the QAU to train and engage staff in quality improvement initiatives. Assessors will examine documentation of such events, seeking properly maintained and labeled report files for workshops, conferences, and seminars conducted by the QAU. Brochures, program schedules, photos, and even newspaper clippings related to these events will serve as evidence of the QAU's proactive role in quality promotion among employees.

Standard 4.2: Audit System (Weightage: 20)

Audits, both internal and external, are essential tools for systematically reviewing and verifying the effectiveness of quality assurance processes. This standard assesses the institution's implementation of a comprehensive audit system, covering academic and administrative functions. It’s about ensuring regular checks and balances to maintain and improve quality.

• Internal Academic Audit: Regular self-assessment is vital. This measurable point examines the existence and effectiveness of an Internal Academic Audit system. This signifies the institution's commitment to self-reflection and internal quality checks in its academic processes. Assessors will check if the institution conducts internal academic audits regularly. They will meet with officials involved in academic monitoring, likely from the AMC, to understand the audit process. They will verify reports produced by the AMC, conduct faculty interviews to gauge their awareness of and participation in internal audits. Appointment orders for internal academic auditors will be examined. Finally, they will review audit reports and any corrective action reports (ATR) generated, demonstrating that audits lead to identified improvements.

• Internal Administrative Audit: Quality assurance extends beyond academics to administrative processes. The presence of an Internal Administrative Audit system will be assessed. This ensures quality checks are also applied to administrative and operational functions for overall institutional efficiency and effectiveness. Assessors will verify the presence of an internal administrative audit system. Appointment orders for administrative auditors will be reviewed. They will examine audit reports and corrective action reports, as well as conduct staff interviews to assess the scope and impact of administrative audits.

• External Academic Audit: External perspectives bring objectivity and validation. The institution's engagement in External Academic Audits will be evaluated. This indicates a commitment to external validation of academic quality and seeking expert external perspectives for improvement. Assessors will look for external auditor assessment official orders, verifying formal commissioning of external academic audits. They will review external audit reports and associated corrective action reports.

• External Administrative Audit: Just as academic functions benefit from external review, so do administrative processes. The presence of an External Administrative Audit system will be assessed. This signifies seeking external expert review of administrative processes for objective feedback and identification of improvement areas. Assessors will verify evidence of external administrative audits, checking audit reports and any corrective action reports implemented as a result.

• Transparent Remuneration System: Fairness and transparency in remuneration are key to employee satisfaction and motivation, contributing to a positive work environment, which indirectly supports overall quality. This point assesses the Transparency of the Remuneration system. While seemingly not directly related to audits, transparency in financial processes is seen as an indicator of good governance and overall quality culture. Assessors will look for documents related to quarterly internal audits specifically focused on the remuneration system, conducted by the finance committee. They will also verify remuneration registers and review audit reports to ensure the remuneration system is regularly reviewed and transparent. Evidence of action taken based on audit findings will also be sought.

Standard 4.3: Employees (Weightage: 20)

Employees are the institution’s most valuable asset. This standard examines the institution's commitment to employee well-being, satisfaction, and continuous improvement, recognizing that a supported and engaged workforce is essential for quality.

• Employees Satisfaction Survey: Understanding employee morale is crucial for a healthy organizational climate. The conduct and utilization of Employees Satisfaction Surveys are assessed. This signifies the institution values employee feedback and uses it to improve the work environment. Assessors will verify the availability of employee satisfaction survey forms. They will examine documented reports summarizing employee satisfaction survey findings and any action taken based on survey results, demonstrating that employee feedback is taken seriously and leads to improvements.

• Corrective Action based on survey for faculty & employees: Surveys are only useful if they trigger action. This point verifies if corrective actions are taken based on employee satisfaction survey findings. This ensures employee feedback translates into tangible improvements in the workplace. Assessors will look for documented reports detailing corrective actions undertaken in response to employee satisfaction surveys.

• Annual Health Check-Up: Employee health is paramount for productivity and well-being. The provision of Annual Health Check-Ups for employees will be assessed. This demonstrates a commitment to employee health and well-being, beyond just the work environment. Assessors will examine employee health check-up records, verifying that regular health checks are indeed conducted.

• Immunization for Employees: Protecting employees, especially in healthcare settings, from preventable illnesses is crucial. The institution's provision of Immunization for employees will be verified. This shows concern for employee health and safety, particularly relevant in health science institutions where employees might be exposed to various infections. Assessors will look for immunization records for employees, specifically checking for records of Hepatitis B and Tetanus toxoid vaccinations and Hepatitis B titre records.

• Employees Welfare Schemes: Going beyond basic requirements, employee welfare schemes demonstrate a holistic approach to employee support. The availability of Employee Welfare Schemes will be assessed. This indicates a commitment to employee well-being and providing benefits beyond basic salary and statutory requirements. Assessors will verify the existence of both statutory and non-statutory welfare schemes offered to employees, referencing institutional guidelines and policies.

• Credentialing of employee qualification: Ensuring staff are appropriately qualified for their roles is a core element of quality assurance. The process of Credentialing of employee qualifications will be assessed. This ensures that staff are appropriately qualified and possess the necessary credentials for their assigned roles. Assessors will look for documented processes for credentialing employees, aligned with job specifications, and check relevant certificates and supporting documents verifying employee qualifications against role requirements.

• Privileging of employees: In clinical settings, "privileging" grants employees scope of practice based on their qualifications and competence. The process of Privileging of employees (where applicable, especially in hospitals) will be verified. This ensures that clinical staff are granted appropriate levels of responsibility and authority based on their qualifications and demonstrated competence. Assessors will look for documented privileging processes and verification of privileging documents.

• Health Insurance: Providing health insurance demonstrates a commitment to employee financial security and well-being in case of health issues. The provision of Health Insurance for employees (and potentially students and faculty) will be verified. This shows care for the financial well-being of staff in health-related matters. Assessors will verify the existence of a health insurance scheme for employees, and ideally also for students and faculty, examining health insurance cards or documentation.

• Recreational facilities for faculty and employees: Supporting work-life balance and employee well-being includes providing recreational opportunities. The presence of Recreational facilities for faculty and employees, both indoor and outdoor, will be physically verified. This signifies recognition of the importance of employee well-being and providing amenities for relaxation and recreation.

• Subsidized canteen facility: Similar to students, access to affordable and convenient food is important for employees too. The presence of a Subsidized canteen facility for employees will be verified, checking for documentation confirming subsidized rates and implementation of this benefit.

Standard 4.4: Students (Weightage: 20)

Students are the primary beneficiaries of the institution's services. This standard evaluates the institution's commitment to student well-being, satisfaction, and quality-focused engagement, mirroring some aspects of the employee-focused standard but specifically targeted towards the student experience.

• Student Satisfaction Survey: Just like employee surveys, understanding student satisfaction is crucial for improving the learning environment and student services. The conduct and utilization of Student Satisfaction Surveys are assessed. This ensures student voice is heard and used to improve the student experience. Assessors will verify the availability of student satisfaction survey forms and documented reports analyzing survey results. Action plans derived from survey findings will also be examined.

• Annual Health Check-Up: Student health is a concern for any responsible institution. The provision of Annual Health Check-Ups for students will be assessed. This demonstrates a commitment to student health and early detection of potential health issues. Assessors will verify records of student health check-ups, confirming they are conducted annually.

• Immunization for Students: Protecting students from preventable diseases, particularly in health science programs, is a responsibility. The institution's provision of Immunization for students will be verified. This shows care for student health, especially important in a learning environment where infectious disease risks can be present. Assessors will look for student immunization records, checking for Hepatitis B and Tetanus Toxoid vaccinations and Hepatitis B titre records, similar to employee immunization checks.

• Health Insurance: Providing health insurance demonstrates a commitment to student financial security related to health matters. The provision of Health Insurance for students (and potentially faculty and employees, already covered in 4.3) will be verified. This protects students from potentially high healthcare costs and shows institutional support for their well-being. Assessors will again look for health insurance cards or documentation proving student health insurance coverage.

• Corrective Action based on survey for students: Student satisfaction surveys are only valuable if they lead to action. This point verifies if corrective actions are taken based on student satisfaction survey findings. This ensures student feedback is acted upon to improve services and the learning environment. Assessors will review reports on corrective actions taken in response to student surveys.

• Subsidized Canteen Facility: Access to affordable food contributes to student well-being, especially for those from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. The presence of a Subsidized canteen facility for students will be verified, checking for documentation confirming subsidized rates and implementation for students.

• % of Students Sensitized on Quality Assurance: Creating a quality-conscious culture requires engaging students in quality assurance. This point measures the percentage of students sensitized on Quality Assurance. This shows efforts to engage students in the QA process and make them aware of quality principles. Assessors will check training records and line lists of students who have undergone quality assurance sensitization programs to verify the percentage of students reached.

• 80% of Students Trained in Quality-Related Tools: Going beyond basic sensitization, equipping students with practical quality tools enhances their skills and understanding of QA in practice. This measurable point assesses if 80% of students are trained in quality-related tools. This signifies a commitment to giving students practical skills in quality management and improvement. Similar to the previous point, assessors will examine training records and line lists of students trained in quality-related tools.

• Participation of Students in Quality Committee/Internal Quality Assessment: Active student involvement in QA processes ensures their perspectives are directly integrated. This point assesses student participation in the Quality Committee and Internal Quality Assessment processes. This ensures student representation and voice within the institution's QA structures and processes. Assessors will verify lists of student members in quality committees and examine documentation of student participation in internal quality assessments, alongside Minutes of the Meetings (MoM) of relevant committees. Evidence of student training on internal assessment procedures may also be sought.

• Quality Projects by Students: Putting QA principles into practice is a valuable learning experience. The presence of Quality Projects undertaken by students will be assessed. This showcases practical application of quality principles by students and fosters a culture of quality improvement. Assessors will seek evidence of quality projects undertaken by students, reviewing project reports to understand the scope and quality of these initiatives.

Standard 4.5: Quality Indicators (Weightage: 20)

Key performance indicators (KPIs) provide objective and quantifiable measures of quality across various aspects of the institution’s functioning. This standard evaluates the use of relevant quality indicators to monitor performance and drive improvement. It’s about using data to track and enhance quality over time.

• Bed Occupancy Rate: In institutions with attached hospitals, Bed Occupancy Rate serves as a key indicator of hospital utilization and service demand. This is a common healthcare KPI, reflecting hospital service utilization and demand. Assessors will examine hospital census data for the day of inspection and 6-month data from medical records to verify bed occupancy rates, benchmarked against a target of 75%.

• Average Length of Stay: In hospitals, Average Length of Stay can indicate efficiency of care and resource utilization. This is another common healthcare KPI, reflecting efficiency in patient care and resource management. Assessors will verify this using patient bed-days data and total discharge numbers from medical records, benchmarking against a target length of stay of 5-7 days.

• Number of OP/IP per Month: Patient volumes reflect the institution's service reach and community engagement. Number of Outpatients (OP) and Inpatients (IP) per month are evaluated as indicators of service volume and community impact. This healthcare KPI shows the institution's reach and service volume in the community. Assessors will verify this using outpatient and inpatient data, comparing against benchmarks set by MCI (Medical Council of India) or relevant norms.

• HAI (Healthcare-Associated Infections) Surveillance Indicators: Infection control is paramount in healthcare settings. HAI surveillance indicators, specifically surgical site infection rates, bloodstream infection rates, UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) rates, and VAP (Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia) rates, are critical quality indicators. These are vital healthcare KPIs, reflecting infection control effectiveness and patient safety. Assessors will verify documentation of these rates, reviewing records related to Needle Stick Injuries as a related safety indicator.

• Staff Attrition Rate: Employee retention reflects job satisfaction and organizational health. Staff Attrition Rate is used as a general indicator of employee satisfaction and the work environment. Assessors will verify staff attrition rates, ideally aiming for a benchmark between 5-10%, using data on staff turnover and overall staff numbers within different categories.

• Library Utilization Index: The extent to which students use the library indicates engagement with learning resources. Library Utilization Index, measured by average time spent in the library per student per week, is used as an indicator of library usage and student engagement with learning resources. Assessors will verify this using library gate registers, aiming for a benchmark of 15 hours per student per week.

• Students Satisfaction Score: Overall student satisfaction, already assessed via surveys, is summarized as a Student Satisfaction Score. This consolidates student feedback into a single metric representing overall satisfaction. Assessors will verify analyzed student satisfaction survey reports, checking if the score is above 80% and not below 50%, representing a target range for student satisfaction.

• Employees Satisfaction Score: Similarly, overall employee satisfaction is summarized as an Employee Satisfaction Score. This consolidates employee feedback into a single metric. Assessors will verify analyzed employee satisfaction survey reports, again checking if the score is above 80% and not below 50%, representing a target range for employee satisfaction.

• Number of CC/MC Meeting Conducted Against Planned: Adherence to meeting schedules demonstrates organizational discipline and commitment to regular review and decision-making processes. The Number of Curriculum Committee (CC) and Management Committee (MC) meetings conducted against planned meetings will be assessed. This indicator measures adherence to planned meeting schedules, signifying organizational discipline in governance and academic oversight. Planning calendars and meeting Minutes of Meetings (MoM) will be used to verify this indicator.

• % of Performance Appraisal Done: Regular performance appraisals are essential for employee development and accountability. The percentage of Performance Appraisals completed is used as an indicator of HR management effectiveness and employee evaluation processes. Assessors will verify the completion rate of performance appraisals, looking for records of performance appraisals completed and comparing it to the total number of staff in each category to calculate the percentage.

Key Area V: RESEARCH ENABLING ENVIRONMENT. 

This Key Area, carrying a weightage of 100 points, shifts the focus to the institution's commitment to fostering a culture of research, innovation, and scholarly activity. In the dynamic field of health sciences, research is not merely an add-on, but a core component of institutional excellence, driving knowledge creation, improving practices, and enhancing the overall quality of education and healthcare delivery. This Key Area is meticulously structured into five standards, each contributing to the overall assessment of the research environment.

Key Area V: RESEARCH ENABLING ENVIRONMENT (Weightage: 100)

A vibrant research environment is crucial for any institution aspiring to be at the forefront of health sciences. This Key Area assesses the institution's systematic efforts to promote, support, and nurture research activities among faculty and students, recognizing research as a vital component of a high-quality academic ecosystem. It is composed of five Standards, each designed to evaluate a different dimension of this enabling environment.

Standard 5.1: Administrative Frame work (Weightage: 20)

A strong research environment requires a supportive and well-defined administrative framework. This standard examines the policies, structures, and processes the institution has established to guide and govern research activities, ensuring ethical conduct, transparency, and efficient management of research endeavors. It's about establishing a clear governance structure for research.

• Research Policy: A cornerstone of a research-focused institution is a clearly articulated Research Policy. This policy acts as a guiding document, outlining the institution's research vision, ethical principles, and operational guidelines. Assessors will verify the presence of a formally documented research policy. This policy should encompass:

  • A clearly stated Research policy document.

  • Articulated Vision and Mission statements for research.

  • A defined Philosophy and Strategic plan for research, aligning with the institution's overall goals.

  • Integration of Ethical guidelines, specifically referencing ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research) guidelines, ensuring research is conducted ethically and responsibly.

  • A clear Registration policy for the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC), outlining the process and requirements for ethical review.

  • A documented list of IEC members, demonstrating a functioning ethics review body.

  • Evidence of the Frequency of IEC meetings, indicating regular ethical oversight of research proposals.

• Institutional Scientific Research Committee (SRC): A dedicated body to oversee scientific aspects of research is essential for quality and rigor. This point assesses the presence and functionality of an Institutional Scientific Research Committee (SRC). This committee is responsible for the scientific review and oversight of research proposals, ensuring scientific validity and methodological soundness. Assessors will verify:

  • That the SRC is well-functioning, looking for evidence of a formally formulated committee, indicating official establishment and recognition.

  • They will meet and interview SRC members to understand the committee's role, processes, and effectiveness.

  • They will examine the Policy manual for the functioning of the SRC, which should document its operational procedures, review processes, and guidelines.

• Minutes of the Meeting: For any committee to be effective, proper record-keeping is crucial. This measurable point assesses if the Minutes of Meetings for research-related committees (likely primarily the SRC and IEC) are well-documented. This ensures that meetings are properly recorded, decisions are documented, and action items are tracked. Assessors will verify if Minutes of Meetings (MoM) are maintained for relevant research committees. It's noted in the document that MoMs and Action Taken Reports (ATRs) can be kept together for efficient storage. Well-documented minutes serve as evidence of the committee's activities and decision-making processes.

Standard 5.2: Research Support Services (Weightage: 20)

Policies and committees alone are not enough; researchers need practical support to carry out their work. This standard assesses the support services the institution provides to facilitate research activities, covering both guidance and practical resources. It's about providing the necessary resources to enable research to thrive.

• Research Advisory Committee: Providing guidance and mentorship to researchers is crucial, especially for faculty embarking on research projects. This measurable point assesses the presence of a Research Advisory Committee. This committee should provide expert advice and support to researchers, guiding project development, methodology, and dissemination. Assessors will verify the presence of a Research Advisory Committee. They will check for evidence of a research advisory committee, noting it may be combined with a scientific committee. They will also check if there are Ph.D. holders present on this committee, indicating a level of research expertise within the advisory body. Claims about Ph.D. holders on the committee will be verified through documentation of committee member qualifications.

• Minimum 1 Publication per Faculty per Year: Research output is a tangible outcome of a research-enabling environment. This measurable point assesses if the institution achieves a benchmark of at least 1 publication per faculty member per year in peer-reviewed, indexed, or KUHS journals. This sets a baseline expectation for research productivity and scholarly output. Assessors will verify the number of publications originating from the college, using RR (Record Review) of publication copies and certificates of publication.

• 50% of UG Projects Published in Last One Year: Involving undergraduate students in research introduces them to the research process early in their careers. This point assesses the publication rate of Undergraduate (UG) student projects, aiming for 50% publication in the last year. This showcases efforts to engage undergraduate students in research and disseminate their findings. Assessors will verify the number of UG projects published in the last year using copies of publications and related documentation.

• 80% of PG Dissertation Published in Last One Year: Postgraduate dissertations represent significant research work. This point assesses the publication rate of Postgraduate (PG) dissertations, targeting 80% publication within one year of completion. This demonstrates a commitment to disseminating postgraduate research findings and contributing to the knowledge base. Assessors will again verify publications through copies of publications.

• 40% Faculty Available as PG/UG Guides: Mentorship capacity is essential for guiding student research. This measurable point assesses if at least 40% of faculty are qualified and available as PG/UG guides. This ensures sufficient mentorship capacity for guiding both postgraduate and undergraduate research projects. Assessors will verify this using the KUHS guide list to confirm the number of faculty members listed as approved guides, especially for PG and UG students.

• 5% Faculty Available as PhD Guides: Supervising doctoral research requires specialized expertise. This point assesses if at least 5% of faculty are qualified and available as PhD guides. This signifies the institution's capacity to supervise doctoral level research, indicative of advanced research capability. Assessors will verify this through registration certificates of faculty members registered as Ph.D. guides with relevant universities.

• Approved Research Centres of KUHS: Formal recognition as a research center by the university signifies institutional commitment and infrastructure. This point verifies if the institution has Approved Research Centres recognized by KUHS. This indicates that the institution has met KUHS criteria for research infrastructure and capacity, gaining formal recognition. Assessors will verify this using KUHS official orders or related documents granting research center status and look for any supporting documents that validate this recognition.

• Research Methodology Workshop: Equipping faculty and students with research skills is crucial. This point assesses the conduct of Research Methodology Workshops within the institution. This indicates proactive efforts to train faculty and students in research methods and enhance their research skills. Assessors will verify if workshops on research methodology have been conducted, checking brochures, program schedules, and photos of workshops.

• Grant Proposal Writing Workshop: Securing external funding is vital for many research projects. This point assesses the conduct of Grant Proposal Writing Workshops. This shows efforts to equip faculty with the skills needed to secure external funding for research projects. Assessors will verify workshops on grant proposal writing through brochures, program schedules, and photos.

• Evidence for Utilization of Research Grant/Seed Money: Securing research grants is only the first step; effective utilization and accounting are also crucial. This point examines the evidence for utilization of research grants and seed money, indicating responsible financial management of research funding. Assessors will verify:

  • How many research grants have been obtained and how many proposals submitted.

  • If any grant proposals have been written by the institution.

  • Presence of documents that precisely detail the management of grants and their utilization.

  • Whether research funds are audited, looking for audit certificates confirming proper financial oversight of research funds. Documents to verify include grant agency communication, account details, grant proposals, documents on grants given, and verified audited utilization reports.

Standard 5.3: Research Collaborations (Weightage: 20)

Collaboration expands research capacity, resource sharing, and impact. This standard evaluates the institution's engagement in research collaborations, both within and outside the institution, fostering a broader research network and synergistic efforts. It's about building research partnerships to amplify impact.

• Stakeholders are Registered: Building a research community involves engaging various stakeholders. This measurable point assesses if the institution has registered stakeholders within a research unit or structure. This signifies efforts to formally establish a research community and involve stakeholders in research activities. Assessors will verify if stakeholders are registered with a research unit or system, checking for a certificate of registration. They will also check for membership cards as evidence of stakeholder registration.

• Inter-Institutional/Inter-University Collaboration: Collaborating with other academic institutions broadens research scope and resource access. This point assesses Inter-Institutional/Inter-University collaborations. This highlights engagement in collaborative research with other academic institutions, expanding research networks and resource sharing. Assessors will verify the presence of MOUs (Memorandum of Understanding) with other institutions and look for RR (Record Review) of documents related to collaborative activities undertaken as part of these MOUs.

• National/International Stakeholders: Expanding research networks to national and international levels increases impact and global relevance. This point assesses engagement with National and International stakeholders for research collaboration. This signifies a commitment to building research partnerships beyond local boundaries, reaching wider research communities. Assessors will seek RR of documents related to national or international collaborations, showcasing the institution's research partnerships on a wider scale.

• Stakeholders’ Involvement (Stakeholders Management, Administration): Engaging stakeholders isn't just about partnerships; it's about active involvement and support. This point assesses the involvement of stakeholders in research management and administration. This highlights stakeholder engagement beyond collaboration, actively involving them in research governance and support. Assessors will look for RR of documents related to stakeholder involvement in research, focusing on management and administration aspects, perhaps including minutes of meetings, reports on joint projects, or advisory roles stakeholders play. They will also check if seed money is provided by stakeholders for research, demonstrating tangible stakeholder support.

Standard 5.4: Research Grants (Weightage: 20)

External funding is a crucial indicator of research quality and competitiveness. This standard evaluates the institution's success in securing research grants, demonstrating its ability to attract external funding and support substantial research projects. It's about attracting external investment to fuel research.

• Intramural Grants Received: Internal funding mechanisms show institutional commitment to supporting research initiatives from within. This measurable point assesses Intramural Grants received by faculty or research teams. This demonstrates internal funding support for research projects, signaling institutional prioritization of research. Assessors will verify the number of intramural grants received by examining grant letters, account details, and audited utilization certificates.

• Extramural Grants Received: Securing external grants signifies competitive research quality and external validation. This point assesses Extramural Grants received, meaning grants from external funding agencies. This highlights success in attracting external funding through competitive grant processes. Assessors will similarly verify the number of extramural grants received using grant letters, account details, and audited utilization certificates.

• Fellowship Awarded: Faculty securing prestigious fellowships is a sign of individual research excellence and institutional support for researcher development. Fellowship awards secured by faculty are evaluated. This showcases individual faculty research achievements and institutional support in fostering research careers. Assessors will verify fellowship awards using official award documents.

• Minimum 5 Research Proposals Submitted for Grants: Submitting grant proposals indicates active engagement in seeking research funding. This point assesses if the institution submits a minimum of 5 research proposals for grants annually. This demonstrates a proactive culture of seeking external research funding and encouraging grant writing activity. Assessors will verify the submission of research proposals by checking for documentary evidence of proposal submissions.

• Audited Statements: Financial accountability is crucial for managing research funds responsibly. This point assesses the presence of Audited statements of fund utilized/grants obtained. This ensures financial transparency and accountability in the management of research funds. Assessors will verify the presence of audited statements documenting fund utilization and grants obtained, confirming responsible financial management of research funding.

Standard 5.5: Research Achievements (Weightage: 20)

The ultimate measure of a research-enabling environment is the tangible achievements it produces. This standard evaluates the institution's research accomplishments, focusing on recognitions, awards, and tangible outputs of its research endeavors. It's about celebrating research success and impact.

• Institutional Awards: Recognition at the institutional level for research signifies overall research excellence and impact. This measurable point assesses Institutional Awards received for research. This highlights institutional-level research achievements and recognition. Assessors will verify any institutional awards received for research activities by examining certificates of awards.

• Institutional Incentive: Rewarding research achievements incentivizes further engagement. The provision of Institutional Incentives for research is evaluated. This signifies institutional encouragement and reward for research activity, further motivating faculty and students. Assessors will verify if the institution provides research incentives, using relevant documentation outlining incentive schemes and lists of faculty who received research incentives.

• University Awards: Recognition by the university demonstrates alignment with university research priorities and quality. This point assesses University Awards received by faculty for research. This showcases individual faculty research achievements recognized by the university itself. Assessors will verify university-level research awards using award certificates.

• Institutional Specific Journal: Publishing an in-house journal can be a valuable platform for showcasing institutional research and fostering a research community. The presence of an Institutional Specific Journal will be assessed. This indicates an institutional platform for disseminating research findings and fostering scholarly communication within the institution and beyond. Assessors will verify if the institution publishes its own journal. They will examine the journal itself to confirm its existence and scope.

• Patents/Copyright: Protecting intellectual property generated through research is important for recognizing and commercializing innovations. This point assesses if faculty have obtained Patents or Copyrights for research output. This highlights innovation and tangible outputs from research, including potential for intellectual property generation and commercialization. Assessors will verify if any faculty members have secured patents or copyrights related to research, checking relevant documentation of patent or copyright awards.

Key Area VI: OUTREACH PROGRAMMES, presented in a detailed, narrative format, without tables. This Key Area carries a significant weightage of 100 points, highlighting the importance KUHS-QAS places on institutions extending their impact beyond the campus and into the surrounding community. It examines how institutions leverage their resources and expertise to address community needs and contribute to societal well-being, reflecting their commitment to social responsibility and community engagement. This key area is organized into five distinct Standards, each evaluating a different facet of outreach.

Key Area VI: OUTREACH PROGRAMMES (Weightage: 100)

Outreach Programmes signify an institution's commitment to social responsibility and extending its benefits to the wider community. This Key Area assesses the institution's efforts to engage with and serve the community, utilizing its resources and expertise to address local health and social needs. It’s broken down into five Standards, each worth 20 points.

Standard 6.1: Community Extension Activities (Weightage: 20)

This standard evaluates the foundational community engagement initiatives undertaken by the institution, particularly focusing on structured, designated service projects within a defined community block. It’s about establishing a consistent and impactful presence within a specific community to provide ongoing services.

• Adoption of Community Block with Designated Service Projects: The core of this standard is the institution's active adoption of a specific community block for focused and sustained service. This demonstrates a long-term commitment to a particular community and not just sporadic outreach events. Assessors will verify the institution's formal adoption of a community block, usually in a geographically defined area. They will seek evidence of designated service projects operating within this block. Verification involves examining several key indicators:

  • Infrastructure for Community Service: Assessors will look for evidence of dedicated infrastructure specifically set up to support community service projects within the adopted community block. This shows investment in creating a base for ongoing outreach efforts, not just relying on ad-hoc arrangements.

  • Brochures Showing Services: Public awareness and communication are important for successful outreach. Assessors will check for the existence of brochures and communication materials that clearly detail the services offered within the community block. This ensures that information about available services is disseminated within the community.

  • Human Resources Available: Outreach requires dedicated personnel. Assessors will look for evidence of dedicated human resources specifically assigned to community service projects within the adopted block. This indicates a planned and staffed approach to outreach, not just relying on volunteers occasionally.

  • Document Verification Related to Service Provided: Accountability and documentation are essential for any program. Assessors will seek documented verification of the services actually provided within the community block. This ensures services are delivered as intended and that there is a record of activities. This might include records of patient interactions, service logs, or program activity reports.

  • Collaborative Activities with LSG (Local Self Government): Effective community engagement often involves collaboration with local authorities. Assessors will look for evidence of collaborative activities with the Local Self Government (LSG), indicating partnerships with local governance structures for better reach and impact within the community. This collaboration is often formalized through Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) or certificates of collaboration, which assessors will seek as proof of partnership. Evidence of activities conducted in collaboration will further validate this point.

  • Reports on Activities: Finally, comprehensive reporting demonstrates a systematic approach to outreach and evaluation. Assessors will look for reports on all community extension activities conducted within the adopted block. This signifies regular reporting and monitoring of outreach programs, allowing for tracking of activities, impact assessment, and future planning. They will expect to see detailed reports outlining the nature and scope of activities conducted, beneficiaries reached, and outcomes achieved.

Standard 6.2: Types of Services Provided (Weightage: 20)

This standard moves beyond basic presence in the community to evaluate the variety and scope of services offered. It examines the institution's efforts to provide diverse types of outreach services catering to different community health needs. It’s about the breadth and depth of services offered.

• Health Camps: Organizing health camps is a common and effective outreach modality, bringing healthcare services directly to the community. Assessors will evaluate Health Camps conducted by the institution, seeking evidence of organized camp activities. They will look for:

  • Number of camps conducted: A quantitative measure of outreach effort.

  • Number of beneficiaries: The reach and impact of the camps.

  • Type of service provided: The range of healthcare services offered in the camps.

  • Report registers: Documentation of camp activities, patient details, and services delivered.

  • Photos: Visual evidence of the camps in action.

• Health Awareness Programs: Preventive healthcare is as crucial as curative services. This point evaluates Health Awareness Programs conducted by the institution to educate the community on health-related topics. This signifies a commitment to health promotion and preventive healthcare within the community. Assessors will look for:

  • Number of awareness programs conducted per academic year: Frequency of health education efforts.

  • Number of beneficiaries: Reach of awareness programs within the community.

  • Report registers: Documentation of program details, participant information, and topics covered.

  • Photos: Visual evidence of awareness program activities.

• Health Exhibition: Engaging and informative exhibitions can be powerful tools for health education and awareness. Assessors will assess Health Exhibitions organized by the institution, focusing on their scale and reach. They will seek evidence of:

  • Number of Health Exhibitions conducted: Frequency of public health education exhibitions.

  • Number of participants: Reach and engagement of the exhibitions with the community.

• Observation of Health Days: Leveraging established health awareness days for focused activities demonstrates a planned and thematic approach to community health education. Assessors will evaluate the institution's Observation of Health Days, nationally or internationally recognized days dedicated to specific health issues. This signifies a planned and thematic approach to health awareness aligned with public health calendars. Assessors will expect to see a list of health days observed (aiming for a minimum of 6 per year). Examples listed in the document include World Health Day, World No Tobacco Day, Drug Abuse Awareness Day, Adolescent Day, World Diabetes Day, and World TB Day. They will look for documentation of awareness programs conducted for each observed health day, along with the number of beneficiaries and report registers and photos for each event.

• School Health: Focusing on children's health is a crucial preventative and long-term investment in community health. This point evaluates School Health programs conducted by the institution within schools in the community. This signifies a commitment to child health and preventive care, reaching a vulnerable and important population group. Assessors will look for:

  • Number of school health programs conducted per academic year: Frequency of school-based health initiatives.

  • Reports and photos: Documentation of activities, beneficiary reach, and program implementation in schools.

• School health programs typically encompass various activities, examples given are:

  • School selection: Active engagement with schools in the community.

  • Screening of children: Provision of basic health screening services to school children.

  • Health awareness programs: Health education targeted at school children.

  • Mosquito control activities: Addressing local health hazards like mosquito-borne illnesses in schools.

  • Personal hygiene education: Promoting healthy hygiene practices among children.

  • Anemia control programmes: Addressing a common health issue among children.

  • Career Guidance: Expanding beyond immediate health needs to include broader student development.

• Palliative Care: Extending compassionate care to those with life-limiting illnesses demonstrates a commitment to holistic healthcare. Assessors will evaluate Palliative Care services provided by the institution within the community. This highlights a compassionate approach to healthcare, extending care beyond curative services to those needing palliative support. They will look for:

  • Number of patients given palliative care within the community.

  • Training programs attended by faculty/students on palliative care, indicating capacity building in this specialized area of care.

  • Awareness programs conducted per academic year on palliative care, reaching out to the community with information and support.

  • Number of beneficiaries reached by palliative care awareness initiatives.

  • Report registers documenting palliative care services and awareness activities.

  • Photos documenting palliative care activities.

  • Evidence of identifying nearby palliative care units and association with Local Self Government and Government Hospitals for referral and collaborative care.

  • Line lists of palliative care patients, demonstrating active patient engagement.

  • Records of volunteer training programs for palliative care.

  • Evidence of participation in palliative care programs, showcasing active engagement in service delivery.

• Geriatric Services: Addressing the specific health needs of the elderly population is a growing societal need. Assessors will evaluate Geriatric Services offered by the institution within adopted areas. This signifies a focus on addressing the healthcare needs of the elderly population, a demographic with unique health challenges. They will look for:

  • Frequency and variety of geriatric services provided.

  • Presence of a Nurse-run clinic within adopted areas specifically for geriatric care. This signifies a dedicated service model for geriatric patients within the community. Specific services examples given are:

    • Geriatric clinic operations.

    • Nurse-run clinics focusing on geriatric health.

    • Counselling services for geriatric patients and their families.

    • Nutrition projects targeted at elderly nutrition.

    • Screening programs for geriatric health conditions.

• Adolescent Health Services: Focusing on adolescent health addresses a critical developmental stage with unique health challenges. Assessors will evaluate Adolescent Health services provided by the institution within adopted areas. This signifies a focus on the specific health needs of adolescents, a demographic with unique developmental and health concerns. They will look for:

  • Variety of services provided specifically for adolescent health.

  • Presence of a Nurse-run clinic in adopted areas focused on adolescent health.

  • Evidence of association with Government Hospitals for referral and collaborative care in adolescent health.

  • Documentation of RKSK (Rashtriya Kishor Swasthya Karyakram) programme implementation, a national adolescent health program, indicating alignment with national health initiatives.

• Dental Screening: Oral health is an often-overlooked aspect of overall health, particularly in community settings. Assessors will evaluate Dental Screening programs conducted by the institution. This signifies attention to oral health as a key component of community healthcare. They will look for evidence of:

  • Number of screening programs conducted per year for dental health.

  • Number of beneficiaries reached through dental screening programs.

  • Reports of screening findings and activities.

  • Photos documenting dental screening camps or events.

• Services for Differentially Challenged Children: Providing specialized services to vulnerable populations demonstrates inclusivity and a commitment to equitable healthcare. Assessors will evaluate Services for Differentially Challenged Children provided by the institution. This highlights a commitment to serving vulnerable populations and addressing specialized healthcare needs within the community. They will look for documentation detailing:

  • Types of services provided, such as counselling, demonstrating specialized support.

  • Support groups provided for differentially challenged children and their families.

  • Reports summarizing services, beneficiary details, and outcomes.

Standard 6.3: Liaison with Local Self Government (Weightage: 20)

Effective outreach is often strengthened through strong partnerships with local governing bodies. This standard evaluates the institution's engagement and collaboration with the Local Self Government (LSG) to enhance its community outreach efforts. It’s about building partnerships for broader community impact.

• Linkage with LSG Project Committee: Formal engagement with LSG structures ensures alignment with local priorities and better coordination of efforts. Assessors will verify Linkage with LSG Project Committees. This indicates a structured and formal engagement with local governance for planning and implementing community projects. They will seek:

  • Request letters for participation in LSG project committees, demonstrating formal engagement with local government planning and initiatives.

  • Reports on activities conducted in collaboration with LSG project committees, showcasing joint efforts and collaborative projects.

  • Photos documenting collaborative activities with LSG.

• Involvement in LSG Health Projects: Active participation in existing LSG health programs demonstrates a commitment to supporting local health priorities. Assessors will evaluate Involvement in LSG Health Projects. This signifies active participation in existing local government health programs, contributing to broader community health initiatives. They will look for:

  • Numbers of programs conducted in collaboration with the LSG, demonstrating active participation in local government initiatives.

  • Reports on collaborative programs.

  • Photos documenting joint activities.

• Stakeholder for Open Defecation Free (ODF) Panchayath: Contributing to sanitation and public health initiatives demonstrates broader societal responsibility. Assessors will evaluate the institution’s role as a Stakeholder in promoting Open Defecation Free (ODF) Panchayats, a significant public health initiative in India. This highlights contribution to a major public health campaign led by the government, demonstrating alignment with national priorities. They will look for:

  • Reports and photographs documenting activities related to promoting ODF Panchayats.

  • Pertaining documents demonstrating involvement in the ODF program.

  • Specifically, they will look for:

    • Reports on ODF programs.

    • Documentation of orientation programs conducted on the ODF initiative.

    • Evidence of engagement with the TSC (Total Sanitation Campaign) department.

    • Records of toilet construction support or initiatives.

    • Documentation of awareness talks conducted on the hazards of open defecation.

• Capacity Building for Local People: Empowering the community through knowledge and skills transfer enhances long-term community resilience and self-sufficiency. Assessors will evaluate Capacity Building Programs for local people, focusing on health-related skills and knowledge. This signifies a commitment to empowering the community through health education and skill development. They will seek evidence of:

  • Types of capacity building programs conducted for local people, especially related to health.

  • Numbers of beneficiaries participating in these capacity building programs.

  • Report documents detailing capacity building activities.

  • Photos documenting training sessions or workshops.

Standard 6.4: Collaborative Activities with NGOs (Weightage: 20)

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) often have deep community roots and specialized expertise. This standard evaluates the institution's partnerships and collaborative outreach efforts with NGOs to leverage their strengths and reach underserved populations. It's about working with NGOs to amplify reach and impact.

• Awareness Programs: Partnering with NGOs for health awareness campaigns leverages their community networks and experience. Assessors will evaluate Awareness Programs conducted in collaboration with NGOs. This highlights collaboration with NGOs for broader community reach and specialized expertise. They will look for:

  • Number of awareness programs conducted in partnership with NGOs.

  • Types of programs, detailing the focus and topics of awareness campaigns.

  • Documentary evidence of collaboration with NGOs, like MOUs or joint project proposals.

• Health Care Camps: NGOs often have expertise in organizing and delivering health camps in specific communities. Assessors will evaluate Health Care Camps organized in collaboration with NGOs. This signifies leveraging NGO partnerships for effective and targeted health camp organization. They will look for:

  • Number of health care camps conducted jointly with NGOs per year.

  • Number of beneficiaries reached through these joint camps.

• Technical Support: Institutions can provide valuable technical expertise to NGOs working in healthcare. Assessors will evaluate the provision of Technical Support to NGOs. This highlights the institution's willingness to share its expertise and resources with NGOs working in the health sector. They will look for evidence of:

  • Technical staff details involved in providing support to NGOs.

  • Job descriptions of staff involved in NGO support roles.

  • Details on the provision of technical support to NGOs, outlining the nature and scope of assistance.

• Consultancy: Institutions can offer specialized consultancy services to NGOs in areas like program design, evaluation, or capacity building. Assessors will evaluate the provision of Consultancy to NGOs. This indicates the institution acts as a resource for NGOs, providing expert consultancy in health-related areas. They will look for:

  • Letters of request from NGOs seeking consultancy services.

  • Numbers of faculty involved in providing consultancy to NGOs.

  • Evidences of consultancy services provided, outlining the nature and scope of consultancy projects.

• MOU and the NGO is a Registered Agency: Formalizing NGO partnerships through MOUs and ensuring the NGO’s legitimacy are important for structured and responsible collaboration. Assessors will verify if MOUs exist with NGOs and that the NGOs are registered agencies. This ensures collaborations are formalized and partnerships are with legitimate and recognized organizations. They will examine MOU documents formalizing partnerships and Registration documents of the NGO, confirming their legal and operational status.

Standard 6.5: Collaborative Activities with Government Agencies (Weightage: 20)

Partnering with government agencies allows institutions to align with national health priorities, access broader resources, and contribute to large-scale public health initiatives. This standard evaluates the institution's collaborative outreach efforts with various government agencies. It’s about alignment with national and governmental health agendas.

• Department of Health and National Health Mission: Collaboration with the Department of Health, particularly through the National Health Mission, signifies alignment with national health programs. Assessors will evaluate Collaborative Activities with the Department of Health and National Health Mission (NHM). This highlights alignment with major governmental health programs and contribution to national health goals. They will look for:

  • Numbers of programs conducted in collaboration with the Department of Health and NHM.

  • Reports documenting these programs.

  • Photos showcasing joint activities.

  • The indicator is simply phrased “Number & Type of programs conducted, report photos”.

• Department of Social Justice and Social Security Mission: Collaboration with social justice and social security departments indicates a broader engagement with social determinants of health and welfare programs. Assessors will evaluate Collaborative Activities with the Department of Social Justice and Social Security Mission. This signifies engagement with governmental bodies responsible for social welfare, addressing social determinants of health and contributing to social safety nets. They will look for:

  • Numbers of programs conducted in collaboration with the Department of Social Justice and Social Security Mission.

  • Reports documenting these programs.

  • Photos showcasing joint activities.

  • Again, the indicator is “Number & Type of programs conducted, report photos”.

• Department of Education: Partnering with the Education Department, particularly for school health programs, is a direct way to impact child health and well-being within the education system. Assessors will evaluate Collaborative Activities with the Department of Education. This highlights engagement with the education sector, particularly relevant for school health initiatives and reaching children through educational institutions. They will look for:

  • Numbers of programs conducted in collaboration with the Department of Education.

  • Reports documenting these programs.

  • Photos showcasing joint activities.

  • Indicator: “Number & Type : of programs conducted, report photos”.

• Total Sanitation Campaign: Supporting national sanitation initiatives through government partnerships demonstrates a commitment to broader public health goals. Assessors will evaluate Collaboration in the Total Sanitation Campaign, a major government initiative aimed at improving sanitation. This signifies contributing to a national public health and sanitation initiative. They will look for:

  • Numbers of programs conducted in collaboration for the Total Sanitation Campaign.

  • Reports documenting these programs.

  • Photos showcasing joint activities.

  • Indicator: “Number &Type of programmes conducted, report photos”.

• Interdepartmental Collaborations: Collaborating across government departments showcases a holistic approach and multi-sectoral engagement. Assessors will evaluate Interdepartmental Collaborations with various government agencies. This highlights a willingness to partner across government sectors for broader impact and addressing health issues in a multi-faceted manner. They will look for:

  • Numbers of interdepartmental programs conducted.

  • Reports documenting these programs.

  • Photos showcasing joint activities.

  • Indicator: “Number &Type of programs conducted, report photos”.

Key Area VII: STUDENT SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE PROGRAMME, presenting it in a detailed, narrative format, without tables. This Key Area, while holding a moderate weightage of 50 points compared to Infrastructure or Faculty, is nonetheless vital. It underscores KUHS-QAS’s recognition that a quality educational institution is not just about academics, but also about the holistic well-being and support system provided to students. It examines the various mechanisms in place to aid students' personal, academic, and career development. This key area is structured into five Standards, each evaluating a different facet of student support and guidance.

Key Area VII: STUDENT SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE PROGRAMME (Weightage: 50)

Student Support and Guidance Programmes are crucial for fostering a nurturing and enabling learning environment, recognizing that students are not just recipients of knowledge, but individuals with diverse needs and aspirations. This Key Area assesses the institution's commitment to student well-being and development beyond the classroom, focusing on the systems in place to provide academic, personal, and career guidance and support. It is divided into five Standards, each contributing 10 points to the overall weightage for this Key Area.

Standard 7.1: SSGP Unit (Weightage: 10)

The Student Support and Guidance Programme (SSGP) Unit serves as a dedicated resource center, coordinating and implementing various student support services. This standard evaluates the functionality and effectiveness of this unit, ensuring it is a vibrant and accessible resource for students. It's about having a dedicated structure to orchestrate student support initiatives.

• Functional SSGP with Minimum 2 Teachers Trained: The core of this standard is the existence of a functional SSGP unit, emphasizing it is not merely a nominal entity but actively operational. Furthermore, it stresses the importance of having trained personnel to run the unit effectively. This measurable point verifies the presence of a functional unit with trained staff, signifying a dedicated resource for student support that is professionally managed. Assessors will look for several pieces of evidence to confirm this:

  • Document related to SSGP unit: Formal documentation establishing the SSGP unit and outlining its purpose, scope, and operational guidelines. This indicates official institutional recognition and mandate for the unit.

  • Teachers training certificate: Evidence that at least two teachers are specifically trained to manage and operate the SSGP unit effectively. This demonstrates professional capacity and trained personnel dedicated to student support functions. Training should be relevant to student support and guidance.

  • Programs organized as per student needs: Evidence that the SSGP unit actively organizes programs that are tailored to address identified student needs. This showcases that the unit is proactive in addressing student needs and going beyond generic support services.

  • Reports sent to university: Documentation that the SSGP unit regularly reports its activities to the university. This ensures accountability and allows for university oversight and potential resource allocation or guidance based on the unit's reported activities and needs.

  • SSGP register: A functional register documenting the activities, student interactions, and key data related to the SSGP unit's operations. This ensures record-keeping and provides a basis for tracking the unit's work and impact.

Standard 7.2: Scholarships & Freeships (Weightage: 10)

Financial accessibility is crucial for ensuring equitable access to education. This standard evaluates the institution’s efforts to provide scholarships and freeships from various sources, easing the financial burden on students and promoting inclusivity. It’s about financial support to widen access to education.

• Government, University, Institution, NGOs, Sponsored Freeships: This standard holistically evaluates the provision of Scholarships and Freeships from various sources. It's not limited to institutional scholarships, but recognizes the importance of facilitating access to external funding as well, aiming for a diverse portfolio of financial aid options. Assessors will examine the provision of scholarships and freeships categorized by source:

  • Government Scholarships: Scholarships provided by central or state governments.

  • University Scholarships: Scholarships offered directly by KUHS.

  • Institutional Scholarships: Scholarships funded and administered by the institution itself.

  • NGO Scholarships: Scholarships facilitated through partnerships with Non-Governmental Organizations.

  • Sponsored Freeships: Freeships or fee waivers sponsored by individuals, alumni, or organizations.

• For each of these categories, assessors will verify information using:

  • Verify office file concerning scholarship: Official records maintained within the institution’s administrative offices documenting scholarship programs, application processes, eligibility criteria, and award details.

  • List of students received: A documented list of students who have actually received scholarships or freeships under each category, ensuring the aid is reaching intended beneficiaries.

  • Amount disbursed: Verification of the total amount disbursed under each scholarship/freeship category, providing quantifiable data on the financial aid provided by the institution and its partners.

Standard 7.3: Grievance Redressal (Weightage: 10)

A fair and responsive Grievance Redressal mechanism is essential for maintaining a just and equitable student environment. This standard evaluates the institution’s system for addressing student grievances, ensuring accessibility, impartiality, and timely resolution of student concerns. It's about ensuring fairness and responsiveness to student issues.

• Formation of Grievance Redressal Committee: A formalized structure is crucial for effective grievance handling. This measurable point verifies the Formation of a Grievance Redressal Committee. This committee is the central body for receiving, investigating, and addressing student grievances, signifying a formal and dedicated mechanism. Assessors will verify the formation of a Grievance Redressal Committee, looking for evidence of:

  • Terms of reference of committee: Documented terms of reference clearly outlining the committee’s mandate, scope, jurisdiction, and operational procedures.

  • List of membersand their willingness letter/acceptance letter: A list of committee members with documented evidence of their appointment and their willingness to serve on the committee, demonstrating a formally constituted body with willing participants.

  • Verify presence of appellate authority: Confirmation that there is a designated appellate authority beyond the Grievance Redressal Committee, to whom students can escalate their grievances if not satisfied with the committee's decision. This ensures a multi-tiered system and a higher level of review for unresolved grievances.

• Policy: A clear policy document outlines the institution's commitment and framework for grievance redressal. The presence of a documented Policy on Grievance Redressal will be verified. This ensures a clearly articulated institutional policy guiding the grievance redressal process. Assessors will examine the policy manual for a comprehensive and accessible Grievance Redressal Policy.

• Procedure: Policies need to be translated into operational procedures. The existence of a defined Procedure for Grievance Redressal will be verified. This ensures a standardized and transparent process for handling grievances, from submission to resolution. Assessors will verify the presence of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) detailing the step-by-step process for grievance submission, investigation, hearing, decision-making, and appeal.

• Compliance with procedure: Having policies and procedures is insufficient without adherence to them. Compliance with the defined Grievance Redressal procedure will be evaluated. This ensures the institution follows its own established procedures in handling actual grievances. Assessors will verify compliance by examining:

  • Verify MoM: Minutes of Meetings of the Grievance Redressal Committee, documenting actual cases, discussions, and decisions.

  • Grievance register: A register specifically maintained to record all grievances received, dates of submission, actions taken, and dates of resolution.

  • Adherence to SOP: Assessors will assess if the committee actually adheres to the SOP by reviewing the grievance register. They will look for evidence within the register that complaints are logged, dates of receipt and action are recorded, and if resolutions are reached within stipulated timeframes outlined in the SOP.

  • Reply register with acknowledgement of the complaint: Verification of a system for formally acknowledging receipt of student grievances and tracking responses, ensuring proper communication with students throughout the process.

  • Despatch register and reply to the complainer: Confirmation that formal responses and decisions are dispatched to complainants, and that a dispatch register is maintained to record these communications.

• Anti-Ragging Committee: Ragging is a serious issue that requires specialized mechanisms for prevention and redressal. The presence and functionality of an Anti-Ragging Committee will be assessed. This ensures a dedicated mechanism to address ragging incidents, a critical aspect of student safety and well-being, particularly in residential institutions. Assessors will examine Committee documents/evidence related to the Anti-Ragging Committee. This includes:

  • Presence of an anti-ragging committee, verified through official formation documents.

  • Evidence of student feedback sought by the anti-ragging committee, demonstrating proactive monitoring.

  • Annual activity report submitted to statutory bodies (like UGC, as relevant), fulfilling compliance requirements.

  • Minutes of Meetings (MoM) of the Anti-Ragging Committee, indicating regular functioning.

Standard 7.4: Career Guidance & Career Progression (Weightage: 10)

Preparing students for successful careers after graduation is a key responsibility of higher education institutions. This standard evaluates the institution's Career Guidance and Placement Cell and its activities in assisting students with career planning and placement. It’s about supporting students in their transition to professional life.

• Career Guidance and Placement Cell: A dedicated cell is crucial for focused career support. The presence and accessibility of a Career Guidance and Placement Cell will be verified. This ensures a centralized and dedicated resource for career guidance, placement assistance, and related activities. Assessors will look for:

  • Office space available: Dedicated physical space for the Career Guidance and Placement Cell, making it easily accessible to students.

  • Number of recruiters: A list of recruiters who have visited the institution for placement drives or recruitment activities, showcasing the cell's outreach to potential employers.

• One Seminar per Year Organized: Seminars and workshops are valuable tools for career awareness and skill development. This measurable point assesses the conduct of at least One Seminar per Year Organized by the Career Guidance and Placement Cell. This indicates a commitment to providing career-related information, guidance, and skill enhancement to students. Assessors will verify this by examining Registers, Reports, and Photos documenting at least one career seminar conducted per year, as well as promotional brochures and program schedules.

• Minimum 2 Organizations Approached for Placement: Proactive outreach to potential employers is essential for placement success. This point assesses if the Placement Cell approaches at least Minimum 2 Organizations for Placement opportunities annually. This demonstrates proactive efforts to build relationships with potential employers and actively seek placement opportunities for students. Assessors will verify outreach efforts by checking:

  • Request letters sent to organizations for placement opportunities, demonstrating proactive outreach to potential employers.

  • Visit schedules, documenting visits made to organizations for placement purposes, showing active engagement and follow-up.

• 20% Placement Through Placement Cell: A tangible outcome of effective career guidance and placement efforts is successful student placement. This measurable point evaluates if the Placement Cell facilitates at least 20% placement of graduating students. This provides a quantifiable metric of placement cell effectiveness, representing the percentage of students successfully placed through cell efforts. Assessors will verify placement figures using Copies of offer letters received by students who were placed through the placement cell, and compare this against overall student numbers to calculate the percentage.

Standard 7.5: Alumni Association (Weightage: 10)

Alumni are a valuable resource for institutions, offering mentorship, networking opportunities, and potential financial support. This standard evaluates the presence and engagement of an Alumni Association, recognizing its role in supporting current students and strengthening the institutional community. It’s about leveraging the alumni network for institutional benefit.

• Registered Alumni Association: A formal Alumni Association structure is essential for organized engagement. The presence of a Registered Alumni Association will be verified. This ensures a formally recognized and structured alumni body capable of organized engagement with the institution. Assessors will verify registration through:

  • Registration Documents: Official documents confirming the Alumni Association's registration as a formal body.

  • Terms of Reference of Committee: Documented terms of reference for the Alumni Association committee, outlining its purpose, functions, and operational framework.

  • Registration number and certificate: The official registration number and certificate validating the association’s legal status.

• Alumni Activities: A functioning alumni association is characterized by regular activities and engagement. Alumni Activities conducted by the association will be evaluated. This signifies an active and engaged alumni body that maintains connections with the institution and contributes to its community. Assessors will verify the presence of alumni activities, looking for evidence of:

  • Newsletter publication: Regular newsletters keeping alumni informed and engaged, facilitating communication and community building. Assessors will verify alumni newsletters.

  • Own social media account: Active social media presence for the Alumni Association, leveraging digital platforms for communication and engagement. Assessors will verify the existence and activity of the alumni association’s social media accounts.

• Contributions: Alumni often contribute back to their alma mater through various means. Contributions from the Alumni Association to the institution will be evaluated. This highlights alumni support beyond just engagement, including potential financial or resource contributions to benefit the institution and current students. Assessors will look for a list of contributions made by the Alumni Association, detailing the nature and value of their support. Evidence of scholarships offered or financial support provided to the Alma mater will be particularly relevant.

• Sponsorships: Alumni-led sponsorships can provide direct financial aid and opportunities to current students. Sponsorships provided by the Alumni Association to students will be evaluated. This signifies alumni support specifically targeted at benefiting current students through scholarships, awards, or other forms of financial assistance. Assessors will verify sponsorships through evidence of:

  • Verify list of students received sponsorship: A documented list of students who have received sponsorship or financial assistance from the Alumni Association.

  • Payment details: Records of payment and disbursement of sponsorship funds to students, providing concrete evidence of financial support.

• Overseas Chapters: The presence of overseas alumni chapters indicates a global alumni network and potential for international collaborations and opportunities. The existence of Overseas Chapters of the Alumni Association will be noted. This signifies a geographically dispersed alumni network and potential for leveraging international connections for institutional benefit, though the document notes this is not compulsory. Assessors will look for documents related to the establishment of overseas chapters, demonstrating global alumni outreach, although it's noted that the absence of overseas chapters will not negatively impact the score significantly as it is not a compulsory element.

Key Area VIII: INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE, presenting it in a detailed narrative format, without tables. This Key Area, carrying a weightage of 50 points, shifts the focus from the academic core and student support to the fundamental structures and systems that ensure effective and ethical operation of the institution. It evaluates how the institution governs itself, encompassing strategic planning, organizational structure, policy frameworks, and financial accountability. This Key Area is structured into five Standards, each assessing a different aspect of institutional governance.

Key Area VIII: INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE (Weightage: 50)

Institutional Governance is the backbone of a well-functioning and reputable educational institution. It encompasses the frameworks, structures, and practices that guide decision-making, ensure accountability, and promote ethical and efficient operations. This Key Area, with a weightage of 50 points, assesses the robustness and effectiveness of the institution's governance mechanisms, focusing on strategic planning, organizational clarity, policy frameworks, financial management, and accountability systems. It’s divided into five Standards, each designed to examine a different facet of good governance.

Standard 8.1: Documented Strategic Plan (Weightage: 10)

A strategic plan serves as a roadmap for the institution's future direction, aligning its activities with its vision and mission. This standard evaluates the presence and communication of a well-documented Strategic Plan, ensuring the institution has a clear direction and a plan to achieve its goals. It's about having a roadmap for the future, publicly declared.

• Institution has a well-defined vision, mission and core values: A strategic plan is built upon a clear understanding of the institution's fundamental purpose and values. This measurable point assesses if the institution has clearly defined and articulated its vision, mission, and core values. This is the foundational element of a strategic plan, ensuring a guiding philosophy for all institutional activities. Assessors will verify the presence of documented vision, mission, and core values. They will seek evidence of these being displayed in various locations and documents:

  • Website: The institution's website, serving as a primary public communication platform, should prominently display the vision, mission, and core values.

  • Notice board: Physical display in prominent areas like notice boards, ensuring visibility to students, staff, and visitors.

  • Wall frames: Display in wall frames within key areas of the institution, reinforcing these principles in the physical environment.

  • Quality manual: Integration of vision, mission, and core values within the institution's Quality Manual, aligning QA efforts with the overall institutional purpose.

• Department-wise vision, mission and core values: Strategic alignment should cascade down to departmental levels. This point assesses if departmental visions, missions, and core values are also defined and aligned with the overall institutional framework. This ensures that strategic goals are translated and implemented at the departmental level, creating a cohesive institutional approach. Assessors will verify the presence of department-level vision, mission, and core values in relevant documents, checking:

  • Faculty handbook: Inclusion in the faculty handbook, making these guiding principles accessible to all faculty members.

  • Document on department profile: Dedicated departmental profile documents articulating their specific vision, mission, and values.

  • Strategic plan of the department: Departmental strategic plans reflecting alignment with the overall institutional strategy.

• Documented and Exhibited in prominent places of the institution: A strategic plan is only effective if it is communicated and visible to all stakeholders. This measurable point assesses if the institution's vision, mission, and core values are not just documented, but actively exhibited in prominent locations. This ensures that the strategic direction is not just an internal document, but a publicly declared commitment, visible to the entire community. Assessors will look for visual evidence of the vision, mission, core values, philosophy, and quality policy displayed prominently within the institution:

  • Wall mounted vision, mission, core values, philosophy and quality policy at prominent places: Observation of strategically placed wall-mounted displays in areas visible to customers (students, visitors, parents), ensuring these principles are readily apparent to all stakeholders.

  • Display of accreditation certificates outside the offices: Publicly showcasing accreditation certificates near administrative offices, demonstrating commitment to external validation of quality.

  • Display of exhibits and trophies obtained: Displaying exhibits and trophies, potentially in public areas, to showcase institutional achievements and promote a culture of excellence.

• Organogram: A clear organizational structure is essential for effective governance and accountability. The presence of a documented Organogram will be verified. This ensures clarity in organizational structure, roles, and reporting lines, crucial for efficient governance and accountability. Assessors will seek evidence of a documented organogram in various forms:

  • Documented organogram in major offices: Availability of physical organogram charts displayed in key administrative offices, providing visual clarity on organizational structure.

  • Display on website: Publication of the organogram on the institution's website, making it publicly accessible and transparent.

  • Wall mounted display: Organogram displayed prominently on walls within the institution, ensuring visibility for staff and visitors.

  • Student handbook: Inclusion of the organogram in the student handbook, orienting students to the institutional structure and key personnel.

  • Faculty handbook: Inclusion in the faculty handbook, ensuring faculty understand the organizational hierarchy and their place within it

• Well documented road map (Gantt Chart) for the next five years: A strategic plan needs to be translated into actionable steps and timelines. The presence of a Well-Documented Roadmap (Gantt Chart) for the next five years will be verified. This ensures that the strategic plan is broken down into actionable steps with defined timelines and responsibilities, facilitating implementation and progress tracking. Assessors will look for:

  • Document on road map of institution for further development: A comprehensive document outlining the institution's roadmap for the next five years, translating strategic goals into specific initiatives and timelines.

  • Gantt chart display in the main office: A Gantt chart visually displaying the roadmap in a central office, making the strategic implementation plan visible and trackable.

  • Files of the top administrators: Availability of detailed files with top administrators related to the strategic roadmap, demonstrating high-level ownership and oversight of the strategic plan implementation.

Standard 8.2: Institutional Councils & Hospitals Shared Governance (Weightage: 10)

Shared governance structures promote collaboration, inclusivity, and diverse perspectives in decision-making, particularly relevant for complex institutions with attached hospitals. This standard evaluates the presence and functionality of various councils and committees facilitating shared governance within the institution and its associated hospital. It’s about distributed leadership and shared responsibility.

• Management Council (MC): A Management Council is often the apex decision-making body in an institution. Assessors will verify the presence and proper functioning of a Management Council (MC). This is a high-level governing body responsible for strategic direction and overall institutional oversight. Assessors will look for:

  • Office proceedings on MC formation: Documentation related to the formal establishment and constitution of the Management Council, including office orders or similar documents.

  • Presence of MC with designated members: Confirmation of the existence of a Management Council with clearly defined members, indicating a formally structured governing body.

  • MOM and ATR: Minutes of Meetings (MoM) and Action Taken Reports (ATR) of the Management Council meetings, demonstrating regular meetings, discussions, and follow-up actions on decisions.

• College Council (CC): The College Council focuses on academic and administrative matters specific to the college. Assessors will verify the presence and proper functioning of a College Council (CC). This is a key body for academic governance and operational management of the college itself. Assessors will look for:

  • Office proceedings on CC formation: Documentation related to the formal establishment and constitution of the College Council.

  • Presence of CC with designated members: Confirmation of a College Council with clearly defined members.

  • MOM and ATR: Minutes of Meetings and Action Taken Reports of the College Council.

  • College council register: A register documenting the activities and proceedings of the College Council, ensuring systematic record-keeping of its deliberations and decisions.

• Institutional Academic Committee (IAC): The IAC specifically focuses on academic quality assurance and improvement. Assessors will verify the presence and proper functioning of an Institutional Academic Committee (IAC). This is a dedicated committee focused on overseeing and enhancing academic quality within the institution. Assessors will examine:

  • Office proceedings on IAC formation: Documentation related to the formal establishment of the IAC.

  • Presence of IAC with designated members: Confirmation of an IAC with clearly defined members.

  • MOM and ATR: Minutes of Meetings and Action Taken Reports of the IAC.

• Minutes of the Meetings (MoM) & Action Taken Report (ATR) (of various councils/committees): Effective governance relies on proper record-keeping and follow-up. This point focuses on the quality of documentation for various governance bodies, specifically the Minutes of Meetings (MoM) and Action Taken Reports (ATR). This ensures that meetings are not just held, but are properly documented and decisions are followed through with action and review. Assessors will examine records related to Minutes of Meetings and Action Taken Reports for various committees, particularly focusing on:

  • Verification of registers for members present and absent in meetings.

  • Checking for members' contributions from different MoMs, indicating active participation and engagement across meetings.

  • Reviewing agendas for meetings, ensuring meetings are planned and focused.

  • Verifying both MoMs and ATRs, ensuring a closed-loop cycle of discussion, decision, action, and review.

• Hospital Management Committee/Council (HMC): For institutions with attached hospitals, effective shared governance extends to hospital management as well. Assessors will verify the presence and proper functioning of a Hospital Management Committee/Council (HMC). This is a body responsible for the governance and management of the attached hospital, ensuring alignment with the institution’s overall goals. Assessors will look for:

  • Office proceedings on HMC formation: Documentation related to the formal establishment of the HMC.

  • Verification of MOM for representatives from college: Ensuring that college representatives are indeed part of the HMC, facilitating shared governance between the college and hospital components.

  • Verification of documents of HMC meeting minutes and ATR: Examining HMC meeting minutes and Action Taken Reports specifically related to academic institution contributions to hospital management, showcasing the college’s role in hospital governance.

• Quality Assurance Committee (QAC): (Note: This is distinct from the QAU, referring to a broader committee potentially overseeing quality across the institution, while QAU is the operational unit). A dedicated Quality Assurance Committee demonstrates high-level oversight and commitment to quality culture. Assessors will verify the presence and proper functioning of a Quality Assurance Committee (QAC). This demonstrates a high-level committee dedicated to overseeing quality assurance across the institution, setting the direction and priorities for QA efforts. Assessors will look for:

  • Office proceedings on QAC formation: Documentation of the QAC's formal establishment.

  • Office circulars on QAC, further validating its official status and communication to the institution.

  • Verification of meeting minutes of the QAC, indicating regular meetings and deliberations on quality matters.

  • Verification of action plan, checking for evidence of QAC-led initiatives and strategic plans for quality improvement.

  • Verification of reports of QAC, showcasing the committee's activities, findings, and recommendations.

• Pharmacy and Therapeutic Committee (PTC): (Note: This is specifically relevant for pharmacy and potentially medical institutions). A PTC plays a critical role in ensuring safe and effective medication use within a healthcare setting. Assessors will verify the presence and proper functioning of a Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee (PTC), where applicable, especially in pharmacy or medical colleges with attached hospitals. This committee is essential for promoting rational drug use, developing formularies, and ensuring medication safety and efficacy. Assessors will look for:

  • Committee members list, verifying the composition of the PTC with relevant expertise.

  • Meeting minutes and ATR, indicating regular PTC meetings and follow-up actions.

  • Various reports of the committee at the institute and hospital level, showcasing PTC’s activities and impact on medication management.

  • The document notes: N.B: This may not be applicable to nursing colleges and certain allied health science institutes, acknowledging that a PTC might not be relevant for all types of health science institutions.

• Infection Control Committee (ICC): Infection prevention and control are paramount in healthcare and educational settings dealing with health sciences. Assessors will verify the presence and proper functioning of an Infection Control Committee (ICC). This is a vital committee for ensuring infection prevention and control measures are in place, protecting both patients and staff. Assessors will look for:

  • Office proceedings on ICC formation: Documentation establishing the ICC.

  • Appointment of Chairperson and members of ICC: Confirmation of a formally appointed committee with a designated chairperson and members.

  • MoM of ICC and ATR: Minutes of Meetings and Action Taken Reports of the ICC.

  • Incident reports: Records of infection-related incidents and the ICC's response.

  • List of activities of ICC including Continuing education of ICC protocols: Evidence of ICC activities beyond incident response, including proactive measures like Continuing Education programs on infection control and related protocols.

  • Availability of antibiotic policy: Verification of a documented antibiotic policy, promoting responsible antibiotic use and combating antimicrobial resistance.

  • Surveillance activities: Records of infection surveillance activities, demonstrating ongoing monitoring of infection rates and patterns.

  • Infection control audit (e.g., hand hygiene): Evidence of regular infection control audits, such as hand hygiene audits, demonstrating proactive monitoring and quality checks.

• Safety Committee (SC): Ensuring a safe learning and working environment is a fundamental responsibility. Assessors will verify the presence and proper functioning of a Safety Committee (SC). This committee is responsible for overseeing safety protocols and practices within the institution, ensuring a secure environment for students and staff. Assessors will verify:

  • Office proceedings on SC formation: Documentation formally establishing the Safety Committee.

  • MoM of SC and ATR: Minutes of Meetings and Action Taken Reports of the Safety Committee.

  • Safety measures like fire exit, Electrical safety, lab safety, Radiation safety, mock drill: Evidence of various safety measures being in place, covering fire safety, electrical safety, lab safety, radiation safety (if applicable), and regular mock drills for emergency preparedness.

  • Verify safe handling practices of drugs, blood and blood products and other body fluids (hospital) and other materials including Biomedical waste management: Assessment of protocols and practices related to safe handling of hazardous materials, particularly in hospital or lab settings, including pharmaceuticals, biological samples, and biomedical waste management.

• Quality Circle Formation & Meeting Minutes: Quality Circles are small groups focused on continuous improvement within specific work areas. Assessors will verify the presence and activity of Quality Circles (QC). This promotes a culture of continuous improvement and employee empowerment at the operational level, encouraging problem-solving and quality enhancements from within work teams. Assessors will verify:

  • Documents on presence of QC: Evidence of the establishment and recognition of Quality Circles within the institution.

  • Number of QC: The number of active Quality Circles operating, indicating the scale of QC initiatives.

  • List of department & faculty in each QC and their roles and responsibility: A list detailing which departments and faculty members are participating in Quality Circles and their designated roles, showcasing broad-based participation in quality improvement.

  • MoM and ATR of each QC: Minutes of Meetings and Action Taken Reports for each Quality Circle, demonstrating their regular operation, problem-solving activities, and implementation of improvements.

Standard 8.3: Administrative /HR Policies (Weightage: 10)

Sound administrative and HR policies are the backbone of smooth institutional operations and a positive work environment. This standard evaluates the institution's documented policies and practices related to HR management and administrative functions, ensuring fairness, transparency, and efficiency. It’s about well-defined and fair operational policies.

• Recruitment/HR Policy: Fair and transparent recruitment and HR practices are essential for attracting and retaining quality staff. Assessors will evaluate the Recruitment/HR Policy of the institution. This ensures fair and transparent hiring and HR management practices, crucial for attracting and retaining qualified staff. Assessors will look for the Availability of a Recruitment/HR Policy document. They will verify:

  • Presence of an HR department or a designated HR executive responsible for HR functions.

  • Documented HR policy, outlining recruitment, employee management, and related processes.

  • Specific policies on recruitment, clearly defining procedures for hiring.

  • Dress code policy, if applicable.

  • Biometric attendance policy and system, if used for attendance management.

  • Leave rules and policies.

  • Policies related to staff development and opportunities for professional growth.

  • Grievance redressal policy and mechanisms for staff grievances (note this might be separate from student grievance redressal).

• Policy for Increment and Promotion: Clear policies on career progression incentivize performance and ensure fairness in advancement opportunities. The presence of a Policy for Increment and Promotion will be verified. This ensures transparent and equitable processes for salary increments and promotions, incentivizing good performance and career development. Assessors will check for Availability of a Policy on Increment and Promotion and its implementation as per policy, looking for documented policies and evidence of their application. Specific elements to verify include:

  • Increment policy document.

  • Evidence that increments are actually provided to eligible staff.

  • Promotion criteria, clearly defined for different roles and levels.

  • Letters issued to employees regarding promotions, demonstrating formal and transparent communication about career advancement.

  • HR budget allocation for increments and promotions, indicating financial commitment to rewarding staff performance.

• Employee Induction/Refresher Training: Investing in employee development is crucial for maintaining skills and adapting to evolving needs. Assessors will evaluate the institution's programs for Employee Induction and Refresher Training. This demonstrates a commitment to employee professional development and ensuring staff skills remain current and relevant. Assessors will look for:

  • Training records documenting employee participation in induction and refresher programs.

  • Line list of all employees and faculties who have undergone induction and refresher training, showcasing broad participation.

  • Verification documents on:

    • Orientation/induction programme (programme schedule): Planned induction programs with clear schedules for new employees.

    • Manual for induction training: A documented manual or guide outlining the content and process of employee induction.

    • List of employee undergone training: As mentioned earlier, lists of employees who have completed induction and refresher programs.

• Employee/ Women Empowerment: Promoting inclusivity and empowering diverse employee groups, particularly women, is a hallmark of good governance and social responsibility. The institution's efforts toward Employee/Women Empowerment will be evaluated. This highlights commitment to diversity, inclusivity, and creating a supportive environment for all employees, particularly women. Assessors will seek documents detailing activities undertaken for employee and women empowerment:

  • Continuing education programmes specifically targeted at employee or women’s professional development.

  • On-the-job training initiatives to enhance skills and career progression.

  • Lists of programs attended by employees and women faculty/staff.

  • Documentation of activities of anti-women harassment cell, ensuring a safe and respectful work environment for women employees.

  • Data on the number of women employees in various roles and levels within the institution, demonstrating gender representation.

  • Information on various women-friendly initiatives implemented, showcasing a proactive approach to creating a supportive workplace for women.

• Admission Prospectus: Transparency and clarity in admission processes are crucial for fairness and attracting quality students. The Availability of an Admission Prospectus will be verified. This ensures prospective students have access to clear, comprehensive, and accurate information about programs, admission processes, and institutional policies. Assessors will verify the availability of the prospectus in both printed and online (website) formats, ensuring accessibility to a wide audience. The content of the prospectus will be reviewed for:

  • Rules and regulations of each course/programme offered, ensuring clarity on academic requirements and institutional expectations.

  • Course details, providing comprehensive information about program content, curriculum, and learning outcomes.

  • Faculty details, showcasing faculty expertise and qualifications.

  • Contact person information, facilitating inquiries from prospective students.

  • Policy on admission, clearly outlining admission criteria, procedures, and timelines.

  • Selection criteria, detailing how applications are evaluated and admissions decisions are made.

  • Course fee printed in admission prospectus, ensuring transparent information about program costs.

• Student Handbook/Faculty Handbook: Handbooks are essential resources for providing students and faculty with key information and institutional guidelines. The Availability of Up-to-Date Student and Faculty Handbooks will be verified. These handbooks serve as essential reference guides for students and faculty, consolidating key information about policies, procedures, resources, and expectations. Assessors will verify the presence of both:

  • Student handbook, containing information relevant to students' academic life, support services, and institutional regulations.

  • Faculty handbook, containing information relevant to faculty roles, responsibilities, policies, and resources. Assessors will also check if Faculty interview protocols and Student counseling protocols are documented in these handbooks, as these are important procedures for faculty and student support.

• Approval from Regulatory Bodies: Legal compliance and external validation are fundamental to institutional legitimacy. The Validity of Certificates from Concerned Regulatory Bodies will be verified. This ensures the institution operates with the necessary legal approvals and recognition from relevant regulatory authorities, signifying legitimacy and compliance with external standards. Assessors will seek:

  • Valid affiliation certificates from state and central regulatory bodies (where applicable, acknowledging that not all courses might require central regulatory approvals, but relevant ones should be in place).

  • Verification of certificates from the affiliated university (KUHS), confirming program affiliation and recognition.

• Grievance Redressal for Employees: Just as students need a grievance redressal mechanism, so do employees. The presence of a Grievance Redressal system for employees will be assessed. This ensures a fair and accessible mechanism for addressing employee concerns and workplace grievances, contributing to a positive work environment. Assessors will seek Evidence for Grievance Redressal committee and documentation on its functionality, verifying:

  • Presence of a grievance redressal committee specifically for employees.

  • List of members of the committee and documentation of their appointment and willingness to serve.

  • Appellate authority designated for employee grievances, providing a higher level of appeal if needed.

  • Policy and procedures for grievance redressal specifically for employees.

  • Information on the functions and functioning of the employee grievance redressal committee.

  • Reports on incident management of grievances, documenting cases handled by the employee grievance cell and their outcomes.

• Performance Appraisal of Faculty and Employees: Regular performance evaluation is crucial for professional development, accountability, and improvement. The implementation of 360-Degree Performance Appraisal for faculty and employees will be verified. This promotes a comprehensive and multi-faceted performance evaluation process, gathering feedback from various perspectives. Assessors will look for:

  • Records documenting the implementation of 360-degree performance appraisal.

  • Verification of policy on performance appraisal, outlining the system and its procedures.

  • Verification of 360-degree performance appraisal forms, including self-appraisal, peer review, feedback from HOD (Head of Department), and HOI (Head of Institution) sections, showcasing the multi-source feedback approach. Ideally, these forms should be recent and in use.

  • Verification of specific formats tailored for different types of appraisal, acknowledging that performance evaluation might vary for different roles and categories of employees.

Standard 8.4: Budget and Audit Report (Weightage: 10)

Financial probity, transparency, and accountability are hallmarks of good governance. This standard evaluates the institution's financial management practices, focusing on budgeting, auditing, transparency in remuneration, and overall financial accountability. It’s about sound financial management and accountability.

• Presence of a Qualified Finance Team: Sound financial management requires expertise. The presence of a Qualified Finance Team will be verified. This ensures that financial operations are overseen by qualified professionals. Assessors will check for:

  • Availability of Office proceedings assigning the staff as financial team: Documentation formally establishing a finance team and assigning responsibilities.

  • Verify qualification of members of finance team (CFO- Chartered accountant, senior accountant and junior accountant – Masters in Commerce/ Bachelors in commerce): Verification of the qualifications of finance team members, ensuring they possess relevant professional qualifications and experience in finance and accounting, such as Chartered Accountants, senior and junior accountants with Masters or Bachelor’s degrees in Commerce or related fields.

• Presence of Institutional Budget: A well-defined budget is essential for financial planning and resource allocation. The presence of an Institutional Budget for each year will be verified. This ensures financial planning and resource allocation are systematically undertaken through a formal budget process. Assessors will seek evidence of a Budget document for each year, verifying:

  • Yearly budget statement, a formal document outlining the institution’s budget for each financial year.

  • Annual audited statements of accounts, demonstrating regular financial audits and accountability.

  • Verification of budgetary allocation and utilization reports, showing how budget allocations are actually used and tracked.

• Cash Register/Acquittance Register: Proper cash management and record-keeping are fundamental accounting practices. The Availability of Up-to-Date Cash Register and Acquittance Register will be verified. This ensures that cash transactions are properly recorded, tracked, and reconciled, and that there are clear records of payments and receipts. Assessors will verify the presence of and examine the state of:

  • Properly maintained cash register: Ensuring a well-maintained and regularly updated cash register, documenting all cash transactions.

  • Presence of acquaintance register (hard/soft copy): Verification of an acquaintance register, either in hard copy or electronic format, for recording receipts and payments.

  • Use of software to manage cash flow: Inquiring about the use of accounting software for managing cash flow, indicating modern and efficient financial management practices.

  • Daily updating of cash register: Checking if the cash register is updated daily, ensuring timely and accurate recording of transactions.

  • N.B: If the cash flow is managed by software like tally with GST no other area need to be evaluated: Acknowledging that if robust accounting software like Tally with GST compliance is used, further manual cash register scrutiny might be less critical, implying that software-based systems are considered sufficient evidence.

• Internal Audited Account Statements: Internal audits provide regular checks and balances on financial operations. The presence of Internal Audited Account Statements will be verified. This ensures regular internal financial audits are conducted to maintain financial probity and identify any potential issues proactively. Assessors will seek Availability of office proceedings for internal auditors and the audited statement by the same internal auditors, looking for:

  • Appointment of internal auditors, verifying formal designation of internal audit personnel or teams.

  • Documents on conducting internal audit with date, showing that audits are performed regularly and are date-stamped.

  • Annual audited statements of accounts, produced as a result of internal audits.

  • Action Taken Reports (ATR) in response to internal audit findings, demonstrating that audit findings are addressed and corrective actions are implemented.

• External Audited Account Statements: External audits provide independent and objective validation of financial records. The presence of External Audited Account Statements will be verified. This ensures independent, external scrutiny of financial records by qualified auditors, providing objective assurance of financial transparency and accuracy. Assessors will seek Availability of office proceedings for external auditors and the audited statement by the same external auditors:

  • Appointment of external auditors (Chartered Accountants), verifying engagement of qualified external audit professionals.

  • Audited statement with date, ensuring external audits are conducted periodically and dated appropriately.

  • Defects identified and ATR: Review of external audit reports to identify any defects or findings, and Action Taken Reports demonstrating how the institution has addressed issues raised by external auditors.

  • Annual audit report: Verification of the annual external audit report, a key summary document of the external audit process and findings.

• 
  

• Action Taken on Audit Objections: Audits are only valuable if objections or findings are addressed. The presence of Action Taken Reports on Audit Objections will be verified. This ensures that audit findings, both internal and external, are not just noted, but actively addressed and corrective actions are implemented. Assessors will seek Document of audit objection and measures taken to remove audit objections. Document on reply to audit paras also, looking for evidence of:

  • Audit objection documents, detailing any findings or concerns raised in audits.

  • Measures taken to remove audit objections, documenting actions taken to address identified issues.

  • Documentation of replies to audit paras, showing formal responses to specific audit findings and recommendations.

• Transparent Remuneration System: Transparency in remuneration practices builds trust and fairness in employee compensation. The Transparency of the Remuneration System will be evaluated. This promotes fairness and openness in how employees are compensated, building trust and accountability in payroll processes. Assessors will examine Bank statements and related documentation to verify transparency, specifically looking for:

  • Bank transactions related to salary payments.

  • Cash register entries for salary payments, if any cash-based payments are still made.

  • Stamp signed register of remittance of salary if paid through aquittance register: In cases where salaries are remitted through aquittance registers, a stamp-signed register should be maintained as evidence of payment.

  • Documents of online transactions: Records of online salary transfers, demonstrating use of digital and traceable payment methods.

  • Salary statements of employees: Sample salary statements provided to employees, showcasing itemized pay components and deductions for clarity and transparency.

• Rules for Meeting Contingencies/Imprest Cash: Petty cash and imprest accounts require clear rules and limits to ensure proper management. The presence of Rules for Meeting Contingencies/Imprest Cash will be verified. This ensures that small cash funds for contingencies and imprest accounts are managed with proper controls and defined spending limits. Assessors will look for Policy a document and availability of imprest cash and its utilization statement, verifying:

  • Rules for meeting contingencies: Documented rules governing the use of contingency funds.

  • Document on financial limit for institutional head: Defined financial limits for spending by the institutional head, ensuring accountability in discretionary spending.

  • MoM of entrusting head of institution for expenditure: Minutes of Meetings where authority is formally entrusted to the institutional head for managing and spending contingency funds.

  • Document of rules for spending imprest cash and contingent fund: Clear guidelines on how imprest cash and contingency funds can be spent and accounted for.

  • Register for imprest money: A register for tracking imprest cash disbursements, receipts, and balances.

• Finance Committee Formation: A dedicated finance committee provides expert oversight of financial matters. The presence of a Finance Committee Formation will be verified. This ensures a dedicated committee is in place to oversee financial planning, budgeting, and audit matters. Assessors will verify:

  • Office proceedings for finance committee: Documentation related to the formal establishment of the Finance Committee.

  • Verification of documents on finance committee formation: Reviewing documents formally constituting the committee.

  • Verify MoM and dates of the meeting: Minutes of Meetings and meeting dates of the Finance Committee, demonstrating regular meetings and deliberations.

• Finance Committee Meeting Biannually: Regular meetings are essential for a committee to function effectively. The frequency of Finance Committee Meetings (biannually) will be verified. This ensures regular financial oversight and review, with the committee meeting at least twice a year. Assessors will examine meeting minutes with action taken report (MoM and ATR) for the Finance Committee to confirm the frequency of meetings and follow-up actions.

Let's explore Key Area IX: INNOVATION AND BEST PRACTICES in detail, presented as a descriptive narrative without tables. This Key Area, though weighted at 50 points, is particularly significant as it recognizes and rewards institutions that are not just meeting minimum standards, but actively striving for excellence through creativity, novel approaches, and a commitment to continuous improvement. It moves beyond basic compliance and seeks to identify and celebrate institutions that are pushing boundaries and setting new benchmarks in health science education and institutional practice. It is structured into five Standards, each highlighting different facets of innovation and best practice adoption.

Key Area IX: INNOVATION AND BEST PRACTICES (Weightage: 50)

Innovation and Best Practices are the hallmarks of leading institutions. This Key Area recognizes and celebrates institutions that go beyond the ordinary, embracing creativity, adopting effective practices, and continuously seeking improvement across their operations. It highlights a proactive and forward-thinking approach to institutional development and a commitment to setting new standards. It's divided into five Standards, designed to identify and reward different forms of innovation and best practice implementation, each contributing 10 points to this Key Area's overall weightage.

Standard 9.1: Innovation (Weightage: 10)

Innovation is the lifeblood of progress. This standard specifically recognizes and rewards institutions that demonstrate a commitment to developing and implementing novel and creative approaches across various aspects of their functioning, particularly in teaching and learning. It's about celebrating creativity and novel solutions.

• On Teaching Methodology: Innovation in teaching methods is crucial for enhancing student learning outcomes and engagement. Assessors will look for documented evidence of Innovative Teaching Methodologies implemented by the institution. This isn’t just about using standard active learning methods; it's about developing truly novel pedagogical approaches or significantly adapting existing methods for enhanced effectiveness. Assessors will seek:

  • Teaching Methodology Document: Formal documentation describing the innovative teaching methodology adopted. This documentation should clearly outline the novelty of the approach, its theoretical underpinnings, and how it differs from conventional methods.

  • Verify documents of innovative teaching methodology: Detailed documentation elaborating on the innovative method, its implementation process, and rationale.

  • Verify materials prepared by teachers: Examples of teaching materials specifically designed and created to support the innovative teaching methodology. This demonstrates practical application and development of resources tailored to the new approach.

• Slow Learners’ Teaching Methodology: Addressing the needs of diverse learners requires differentiated approaches. Innovation in Teaching Methodology specifically targeted for Slow Learners is particularly valued. This highlights a commitment to inclusive pedagogy and addressing the learning challenges of diverse student populations. Assessors will seek evidence of innovative teaching methods specifically designed and implemented to support slow learners, looking for:

  • Document on Methodology adopted and Log Book: Documentation describing the innovative teaching methodology adapted for slow learners. The inclusion of a Log Book implies tracking the implementation and effectiveness of these methods for this specific student group.

  • Verify documents of innovative teaching methodology for slow learners: Detailed documentation explaining the adapted methodology and its rationale for slow learners.

  • Verify learning assessment book and mentor’s logbook: Evidence of learning assessment specific to slow learners and mentor's logbook, demonstrating tracking of student progress, effectiveness of the adapted methodology, and personalized support.

• Product Innovation: Institutions engaged in health sciences have the potential to develop tangible innovations with practical applications. Product Innovation, including awards or special appreciation received for such innovations, is recognized. This celebrates tangible outcomes of innovation that have practical applications, potentially benefiting healthcare delivery or education. Assessors will seek:

  • awards/special appreciation received received: Evidence of awards, accolades, or special recognition received for product innovations developed by the institution or its members. Verify appreciation letter which acts as proof of recognition for the innovation.

• Students Projects: Innovation can also originate from student-led initiatives. Students' Projects demonstrating innovation are also recognized under this standard. This highlights fostering a culture of innovation among students and encouraging creative problem-solving through student-led projects. Assessors will look for:

  • document on projects and the protocol: Documentation of innovative student projects, outlining their goals, methodologies, and outcomes. Documentation should also include the project protocol, indicating a structured and planned approach to student innovation.

  • Verify documents of innovative student projects: Detailed project reports, presentations, or other forms of documentation showcasing the innovative nature and impact of student projects.

Standard 9.2: Best Practices (Weightage: 10)

Best Practices represent effective strategies and approaches that have demonstrably led to positive outcomes and serve as models for others. This standard recognizes institutions that have identified, documented, and effectively implemented best practices in various functional areas, contributing to enhanced institutional effectiveness and demonstrating a culture of continuous improvement. It’s about identifying, implementing, and showcasing successful strategies.

This standard looks for Best Practices implemented in four key domains:

• Best Practices in Clinical Departments: Clinical settings offer numerous opportunities for process improvement and innovative approaches to patient care and clinical training. Assessors will look for documented Best Practices implemented within Clinical Departments. This showcases excellence in clinical practice, patient care delivery, and innovative approaches within clinical training settings.

• Best Practices in Administration: Efficient and effective administration is crucial for smooth institutional functioning. Assessors will evaluate Best Practices implemented in Administration. This highlights effective administrative processes, streamlined workflows, and innovative solutions in institutional management.

• Best Practices in Hospitality: Creating a welcoming and supportive environment contributes to overall institutional quality, particularly in residential institutions. Assessors will assess Best Practices in Hospitality, focusing on aspects relevant to student and visitor experience. This demonstrates attention to creating a positive and supportive institutional environment, encompassing aspects like student services, visitor experience, and overall institutional climate.

• Best Practices in Food and Beverages (Hostel & Canteen): Food and beverage services are vital for student and staff well-being, especially in residential settings. Assessors will look for Best Practices implemented in Food and Beverages (Hostel & Canteen). This highlights excellence in managing food services, hygiene, nutrition, and efficiency in hostel and canteen operations.

For each of these domains, verification will involve:

• Documentation to prove: Robust documentation is key to validating best practices. For each domain, the institution needs to provide clear and compelling documentation to demonstrate the implemented best practice.

• RR of best practice: Record Review (RR) of documented best practices. Assessors will examine detailed write-ups, procedural manuals, or policy documents that thoroughly describe the best practice, its implementation, and rationale.

• Verify outcome: Evidence of positive outcomes resulting from the implementation of the best practice. Simply documenting a practice isn't enough; assessors want to see evidence that it has yielded measurable positive results. This might include data, reports, feedback, or other metrics demonstrating improvements due to the best practice. Analyzed and presented outcome measure is specifically mentioned for Best Practices in Hospitality and Best practices in Food and Beverages, implying that quantifiable data and analysis of outcomes are particularly important for these domains.

• Photos: Visual evidence, where appropriate, to support the documentation and provide a tangible illustration of the best practice in action.

Standard 9.3: Environment Friendly Projects (Weightage: 10)

Environmental consciousness and sustainability are increasingly important for all institutions, and especially relevant in health sciences given the impact of environmental factors on health. This standard recognizes and rewards institutions that are actively implementing Environment Friendly Projects, demonstrating a commitment to sustainability and responsible environmental practices. It's about green initiatives and sustainable practices.

• Solid, Liquid and e-Waste Management System: Effective waste management is a crucial aspect of environmental responsibility. Assessors will evaluate the institution’s Solid, Liquid, and e-Waste Management System. This highlights commitment to responsible waste disposal and minimizing environmental impact. Verification will involve:

  • availability of solid,liquid and e waste management system: Confirmation of the presence of systems and infrastructure for managing solid waste, liquid waste (sewage and wastewater), and electronic waste, demonstrating a comprehensive approach to waste management.

  • Observe methods of waste management: On-site observation of waste management practices, looking at segregation, collection, processing, and disposal methods to assess their effectiveness and adherence to best practices.

  • Verify MOU if institution is collaborating with any agencies: Verification of any Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with external agencies or organizations for waste management, indicating collaborations for specialized or large-scale waste disposal processes, or recycling initiatives.

• Plastic Free Campus: Reducing plastic waste is a key environmental goal for many institutions. Assessors will evaluate efforts towards creating a Plastic-Free Campus. This signifies a commitment to reducing plastic pollution and promoting a more sustainable campus environment. Verification will involve:

  • Plastic fee zone,measures adopted for this activity: Checking for designated "plastic-free zones" within the campus, indicating a geographically targeted approach. Assessors will look for documented measures adopted to achieve plastic-free status.

  • Observe for plastic free campus: On-site observation to assess the extent to which the campus is actually plastic-free, looking for visible signage, availability of alternatives to plastic, and overall reduction in plastic use.

  • Verify circular initiating plastic free campus: Review of official circulars or notifications issued by the institution to initiate and promote the plastic-free campus initiative, demonstrating formal institutional commitment.

• Rainwater Harvesting/Signages for Water Conservation: Water conservation is critical for sustainability. Assessors will evaluate Rainwater Harvesting and Signages for Water Conservation initiatives. This highlights efforts towards water conservation and promoting water-wise practices within the institution. Verification will involve:

  • presence of signages,availability of rain water conservation measures: Checking for the presence of signages promoting water conservation awareness throughout the campus, reinforcing the importance of water saving behaviors. Observation of rainwater harvesting infrastructure and facilities, confirming that rainwater harvesting systems are in place and functional.

  • Observe for signage: Physical observation of signage promoting water conservation.

  • Observe water conservation measures: Visual inspection of water conservation measures implemented across the campus, like water-efficient fixtures, landscaping practices, or water recycling systems.

• Vegetable Garden/Herbal Garden: Promoting green spaces and potentially sustainable food practices contributes to a healthier campus environment. Assessors will evaluate the presence of a Vegetable Garden/Herbal Garden on campus. This signifies efforts to enhance green spaces, promote biodiversity, and potentially incorporate sustainable food practices or herbal medicine awareness. Verification involves:

  • Availability of vegetable/herbal garden: On-site observation to confirm the presence of a functioning vegetable or herbal garden on campus.

  • Observe for vegetable garden: Direct visual confirmation of the garden, assessing its size, variety of plants, and level of maintenance.

• Green Campus Initiative and Biofencing: A comprehensive green campus initiative goes beyond specific projects to encompass overall environmental consciousness. Assessors will evaluate the Green Campus Initiative and Biofencing efforts. This showcases a holistic approach to environmental sustainability, encompassing green spaces, biodiversity promotion, and campus aesthetics. Verification will involve:

  • As per green protocolol availability of biofencing and green initiatives: Checking for adherence to green protocols (if any adopted by the institution), focusing on biofencing initiatives (using living fences instead of walls) and broader green campus initiatives.

  • Verify protocol for green campus: Review of any documented green campus protocol or policy adopted by the institution, outlining their environmental sustainability goals and strategies.

  • Circular regarding green initiatives: Examination of official circulars or communications promoting green initiatives and awareness campaigns within the institution.

  • Observe for bio fencing: Physical observation to confirm the presence of biofencing, visually assessing if living fences are indeed implemented as a sustainable landscaping approach.

Standard 9.4: Energy Conservation Projects (Weightage: 10)

Energy efficiency and conservation are critical aspects of environmental and financial sustainability for any organization. This standard recognizes and rewards institutions that are implementing Energy Conservation Projects, demonstrating a commitment to reducing energy consumption and adopting energy-efficient practices. It’s about energy efficiency and reducing carbon footprint.

• Energy/Power Audit: A systematic energy audit is the first step toward effective energy conservation. Assessors will evaluate the conduct of Energy/Power Audits by the institution. This ensures a data-driven approach to energy management, identifying areas for improvement through systematic assessments. Verification will involve:

  • Records on Audit by approved agency: Review of audit reports generated from energy or power audits conducted by a recognized or approved agency, ensuring credibility and expertise in the audit process. RR of audit by approved agency will be sought as evidence.

• Solar Paneling: Harnessing renewable energy sources like solar power is a significant step toward sustainability. Assessors will evaluate the implementation of Solar Paneling on campus. This highlights adoption of renewable energy sources and a move towards reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Verification will involve checking:

  • presence of solar paneeling for the entire campus: Observation to confirm the physical presence of solar panel installations, ideally covering a significant portion or even the entire campus.

  • Verify bill payments: Review of electricity bill payments, looking for reductions in electricity consumption or cost savings that can be attributed to solar panel installations and energy efficiency measures.

• 50% Replacement with Non-Conventional Energy: Going beyond solar, a broader commitment to non-conventional energy sources demonstrates a stronger commitment to sustainability. Assessors will evaluate 50% Replacement with Non-Conventional Energy sources. This signifies a significant shift towards renewable energy, aiming for a substantial portion of energy consumption to be met through non-conventional sources. Verification will involve assessing the availability of non conventional energy usage like usage of sunlight, wind, rain, and geothermal heat, going beyond just solar to consider a wider range of renewable energy options appropriate to the location and context. Observation will be the primary method of verifying implementation of these methods.

• Safe Sound Technology: Reducing noise pollution is an often-overlooked aspect of environmental well-being, particularly in educational and healthcare environments. Assessors will evaluate the adoption of Safe Sound Technology. This highlights attention to noise pollution reduction and creating a more conducive environment for learning and well-being. Assessors will seek Evidence for measures preventing sound pollution, such as noise-dampening materials, sound barriers, or noise-reducing technologies, through observation.

• Signage on Energy Conservation: Raising awareness and promoting energy-saving behaviors is crucial for fostering a culture of conservation. The presence of Signage on Energy Conservation throughout the campus will be verified. This reinforces the message of energy conservation and encourages energy-conscious behavior among students and staff. Assessors will simply Observe for display boards on energy conservation throughout the campus, noting their visibility and messaging effectiveness.

Standard 9.5: Special Projects (Weightage: 10)

This final standard in Key Area IX recognizes and rewards institutions for undertaking Special Projects that go above and beyond routine activities, demonstrating creativity, community engagement, or initiatives that enhance the institution's profile and service to its stakeholders. It's a catch-all for extraordinary and impactful initiatives.

• Building Landscape Suitable for Physically Challenged: Creating an inclusive and accessible environment is a hallmark of a socially responsible institution. Assessors will evaluate if the Building Landscape is Suitable for Physically Challenged individuals. This showcases commitment to accessibility and inclusivity, ensuring the campus is welcoming and usable for people with disabilities. Verification involves:

  • availability of physically challenged friendly measures like ramp,railing,Physically challenged friendly toilets: Observation to confirm the presence of physical accessibility features like ramps, railings, and specifically designed toilets for individuals with physical challenges.

  • Observe for presence of Physically challenged friendly measures like ramp, railing, Physically challenged friendly toilets: On-site visual verification of these accessibility features throughout the campus.

• Internal Counsel Committee: Providing internal counseling services to students and staff demonstrates a commitment to their mental and emotional well-being. The presence and activity of an Internal Counsel Committee will be verified. This highlights commitment to student and staff well-being by providing accessible internal counseling and support services. Assessors will verify:

  • document and the minutes of the committee: Documentation establishing the Internal Counsel Committee and Minutes of its Meetings.

  • Verify presence of committee and committee members: Confirmation of a formally established committee with designated members, indicating a structured counseling support system.

  • Verify MoM: Reviewing Minutes of Meetings of the Internal Counsel Committee, showing regular meetings, discussions, and activities.

• College/Hospital Day Celebration: Organizing and celebrating an annual College/Hospital Day can foster institutional pride, community spirit, and showcase achievements. Assessors will evaluate the institution's College/Hospital Day Celebration. This signifies an effort to build community spirit, celebrate achievements, and enhance institutional pride through a dedicated annual event. Assessors will verify the celebration through:

  • verify records and documentation: Examination of records and documentation related to College/Hospital Day celebrations.

  • RR of documents of college day like invitation card, brochure, programme schedule, photos etc.: Record Review of event-related materials like invitation cards, brochures, program schedules, photos, and other documentation proving the event's organization and scope.

• Honoring Faculty: Recognizing and honoring faculty contributions and achievements is important for morale and fostering a culture of appreciation. Efforts to Honor Faculty through formal events or recognition programs will be evaluated. This highlights a culture of recognizing and celebrating faculty contributions, promoting morale and appreciation. Assessors will seek:

  • Documentation to prove Brochure and event photos,media coverage: Documentation showcasing faculty honoring events. This includes brochures, event photos, and media coverage, demonstrating public recognition of faculty achievements.

  • RR of documents like Brochure and event photos, media coverage: Record Review of event-related materials, similar to College/Hospital Day, confirming the honoring events took place and their scope.

• Endowment Talks/Speeches: Inviting distinguished speakers for endowment talks or speeches can enrich the intellectual environment and raise the institution's profile. Assessors will evaluate the conduct of Endowment Talks/Speeches. This signifies efforts to bring in external expertise and enrich the intellectual atmosphere of the institution through invited lectures and talks. Assessors will look for:

  • Documents on such events Brochure,upload on website: Documentation of Endowment talks or speeches organized by the institution. This includes brochures, event details, and ideally, evidence of uploading event information or speaker details on the institution’s website, indicating broader dissemination and promotion of these intellectual events.

  • RR of documents like Brochure and event photos, upload on website: Record Review of event materials and website presence, confirming the organization and promotion of these talks and speeches.

Key Area X: FEEDBACK IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS, presenting it in a detailed narrative format, without tables. This final Key Area, carrying a weightage of 50 points, is the culmination of the quality cycle emphasized throughout the KUHS-QAS framework. It moves beyond just collecting feedback (which is evaluated in previous Key Areas) to assess the crucial steps of analyzing, prioritizing, planning, and implementing changes based on that feedback. This Key Area is about “closing the loop” on quality improvement, demonstrating a genuine commitment to responsiveness and continuous enhancement based on stakeholder input. It is carefully structured into five Standards, each focusing on a distinct stage of the feedback implementation process.

Key Area X: FEEDBACK IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS (Weightage: 50)

Feedback Implementation Process is the crucial step that transforms stakeholder input into tangible improvements. This Key Area assesses the institution's systems and processes for systematically acting on feedback received from various sources, demonstrating a commitment to continuous improvement and responsiveness to stakeholder needs. It's divided into five Standards, each worth 10 points, representing the sequential stages of a robust feedback implementation cycle.

Standard 10.1: Feedback Implementation Committee and Policy & Processes (Weightage: 10)

The foundation of an effective feedback implementation process is a dedicated structure and clear guidelines. This standard evaluates the establishment of a Feedback Implementation Committee and the existence of documented policies and processes guiding its operation. This is about setting up the infrastructure and framework to manage feedback systematically.

• Feed Back Implementation committee and policy& processes: For feedback to be acted upon effectively, a designated body is needed to manage the process. Assessors will verify the presence of a formal Feedback Implementation Committee and documented policies and processes guiding its operation. This ensures there is a designated group responsible for managing feedback implementation and that their work is guided by clear and established procedures. Verification will involve looking for:

  • proceedings on formation of the committee: Documentation related to the formal establishment of the Feedback Implementation Committee. This could be office orders, minutes of meetings where the committee was formed, or other official documents outlining its constitution.

  • availability of policy and process document: Evidence of a documented policy and clearly defined processes outlining how the Feedback Implementation Committee operates, including its scope, responsibilities, procedures for handling feedback, and decision-making processes. This ensures transparency and consistency in how feedback is managed and acted upon.

  • Minutes of meeting: Minutes of Meetings of the Feedback Implementation Committee, documenting their regular meetings, discussions about feedback, and planned actions.

  • Policy manuals: Policy manuals outlining the overall institutional framework for feedback management and implementation, providing broader context for the committee’s work.

Standard 10.2: Listing of suggestions category wise (Weightage: 10)

Raw feedback is often unorganized and needs to be categorized for effective analysis and action. This standard evaluates the institution's process for Listing Suggestions Category-wise, ensuring feedback is organized systematically for analysis and prioritization. It’s about organizing and structuring raw feedback data.

• Listing of suggestions category wise: To make sense of potentially large volumes of feedback, a system for categorization is essential. This measurable point assesses if the institution systematically lists feedback and suggestions categorized by theme or area. This ensures that feedback is not just collected, but organized in a way that facilitates analysis, identification of trends, and prioritization of action areas. Assessors will seek evidence of a Feedback Register. This register should demonstrate a system for:

  • Register of categorywise feedback suggestions: A register or similar documentation system that lists feedback and suggestions received, organized into meaningful categories (e.g., curriculum, infrastructure, student services, teaching methods, etc.). This categorization makes it easier to identify recurring themes and prioritize action areas.

Standard 10.3: Prioritizing the suggestions (Weightage: 10)

Not all suggestions can or should be implemented immediately. Prioritization is crucial for focusing resources and efforts effectively. This standard evaluates the institution's process for Prioritizing Suggestions, ensuring a systematic and rational approach to deciding which feedback items to address first. It’s about deciding which feedback items are most important to address.

• prioritising the suggestions: With a categorized list of suggestions, the next crucial step is to prioritize them for action. This measurable point assesses the institution's process for prioritizing feedback suggestions, demonstrating a rational and considered approach to deciding which issues to address first. This is not arbitrary; it needs to be a reasoned process. Assessors will look for:

  • evidence of prioritising the suggestions based on consensus among the staff and students: Evidence that prioritization of suggestions is not arbitrary but based on a process of consensus-building, involving relevant stakeholders like staff and students. This demonstrates a collaborative and inclusive approach to decision-making based on feedback. This process and consensus building will be verified through Curriculum committee minutes/other relevant committees. Minutes from the Curriculum Committee or other relevant committees (like student welfare committees, IQAC meetings, etc.) should show discussions where feedback suggestions were reviewed, prioritized based on criteria or discussions involving staff and student representatives, and decisions made regarding which suggestions to address. The minutes should ideally reflect the reasoning behind prioritization, showing a thoughtful approach, rather than simply listing prioritized items.

Standard 10.4: Preparation of Action plan with timeline (Weightage: 10)

Prioritized suggestions need to be translated into concrete action plans with clear timelines to ensure implementation. This standard evaluates the institution's process for Preparing Action Plans with Timelines for prioritized feedback items, ensuring that feedback translates into concrete, time-bound actions for improvement. It’s about translating prioritized feedback into concrete, time-bound plans.

• preparation of Action plan with timeline: Prioritization is followed by planning. This measurable point assesses the institution’s process for developing action plans with specific timelines for addressing prioritized suggestions. This turns prioritized feedback into concrete, actionable steps with assigned responsibilities and deadlines, moving from analysis to implementation. Assessors will look for:

  • Document on Action plan with timeline: Formal documentation of action plans, outlining specific actions to be taken in response to prioritized feedback, including clear timelines for completion.

  • Minutes of faculty meeting: Minutes of faculty meetings or relevant committee meetings (like IQAC, planning committees etc.) where action plans were discussed, developed, and finalized. This demonstrates collaborative planning and faculty involvement in action planning.

  • Academic calendar: The Academic Calendar may also serve as a reference point, showing if timelines for action implementation are aligned with the academic schedule and integrated into institutional planning. For instance, if curriculum changes are planned based on feedback, the academic calendar might reflect timelines for curriculum revision processes.

Standard 10.5: Adherence to Action plan (Weightage: 10)

Even well-developed action plans are ineffective without proper implementation and follow-through. This final standard evaluates Adherence to Action Plans, ensuring that the institution not only plans for improvement, but actually implements the planned actions and monitors progress. It’s about the crucial step of implementing the planned actions and ensuring accountability.

• Adherence to Action plan: The final and most crucial step is implementation. This measurable point assesses the institution’s Adherence to the developed Action Plans, ensuring that planned actions are actually carried out and progress is tracked. This demonstrates a commitment to seeing feedback implementation through to completion and not just planning on paper. Assessors will look for:

  • Document on implementation of activities suggested in the action plan adhering time line and managemnt contribution for the resources: Documentation demonstrating the actual implementation of activities outlined in the action plan, including evidence of adherence to established timelines and management commitment of resources (financial, personnel, etc.) to support implementation. This signifies that action plans are not just created but actively implemented and resourced.

  • Minutes of management committee on allocation of resources: Minutes of Management Committee or relevant governing body meetings that demonstrate resource allocation decisions made to support the implementation of action plans, showcasing top-level commitment and resource mobilization for feedback-driven improvements.

  • Annual report of institution: The institution’s Annual Report may be reviewed to check for mention of feedback implementation initiatives, progress made on action plans, and outcomes achieved, providing a high-level overview of the impact of feedback-driven improvements on institutional functioning.

List of Committees and Their References:

1. Quality Assurance Council:

   • Purpose: Along with the Planning Committee, it is involved in constantly upgrading standards of training & evaluation.

   • Reference: Page 15 (Section b.Mission, Point A), mentioned in the context of ensuring high quality education.

2. Institutional Quality Assurance Unit (IQAC):

   • Purpose: To coordinate and manage quality assurance initiatives within the institution.

   • Reference: Pages 87-88 (Standard 4.1 - Measurable Indicator 4.1.1, Key Area IV), this is the central body for quality assurance, responsible for various functions outlined in Standard 4.1.

3. Curriculum Committee:

   • Purpose: To oversee and manage curriculum development, implementation, and monitoring.

   • Reference: Pages 79 (Standard 3.2 - Measurable Indicator 3.2.5, Key Area III), discussed in detail under Curriculum Monitoring Committee, responsible for various functions related to curriculum quality. Page 92 (Standard 3.5 - Measurable Indicator 3.5.1, Key Area III), for verifying corrective measures after feedback.

4. Academic Monitoring Cell (AMC):

   • Purpose: To continuously monitor and improve academic processes and quality standards.

   • Reference: Pages 82-83 (Standard 3.4 - Measurable Indicator 3.4.1, Key Area III), discussed in detail under Academic Monitoring Cell, responsible for various functions related to academic quality monitoring and improvement. Page 176 ("GLOSSARY OF TERMS"), defines Academic Audit in relation to AMC.

5. Management Council (MC):

   • Purpose: High-level governing body responsible for strategic direction and overall institutional oversight.

   • Reference: Page 136 (Standard 8.2 - Measurable Indicator 8.2.1, Key Area VIII), detailed description of its role and verification measures in Institutional Governance.

6. College Council (CC):

   • Purpose: Key body for academic governance and operational management of the college.

   • Reference: Page 136 (Standard 8.2 - Measurable Indicator 8.2.2, Key Area VIII), detailed description of its role and verification measures in Institutional Governance.

7. Institutional Academic Committee (IAC):

   • Purpose: Dedicated committee focused on overseeing and enhancing academic quality.

   • Reference: Page 137 (Standard 8.2 - Measurable Indicator 8.2.3, Key Area VIII), detailed description of its role and verification measures in Institutional Governance.

8. Hospital Management Committee/Council (HMC):

   • Purpose: Responsible for governance and management of the attached hospital, ensuring alignment with the institution’s overall goals.

   • Reference: Page 137 (Standard 8.2 - Measurable Indicator 8.2.5, Key Area VIII), detailed description of its role and verification measures in Institutional Governance.

9. Quality Assurance Committee (QAC):

   • Purpose: High-level committee dedicated to overseeing quality assurance across the institution, setting the direction and priorities for QA efforts.

   • Reference: Page 138 (Standard 8.2 - Measurable Indicator 8.2.6, Key Area VIII), detailed description of its role and verification measures in Institutional Governance.

10. Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee (PTC):

    • Purpose: Ensures safe and effective medication use within a healthcare setting (relevant for pharmacy and medical colleges).

    • Reference: Page 138 (Standard 8.2 - Measurable Indicator 8.2.7, Key Area VIII), detailed description of its role and verification measures in Institutional Governance.

11. Infection Control Committee (ICC):

    • * Purpose: Ensures infection prevention and control measures are in place, protecting patients and staff.

    • * Reference: Page 139 (Standard 8.2 - Measurable Indicator 8.2.8, Key Area VIII), detailed description of its role and verification measures in Institutional Governance.

12. Safety Committee (SC):

    • Purpose: Oversees safety protocols and practices within the institution, ensuring a secure environment.

    • Reference: Page 139 (Standard 8.2 - Measurable Indicator 8.2.9, Key Area VIII), detailed description of its role and verification measures in Institutional Governance.

13. Quality Circle (QC):

    • Purpose: Promotes continuous improvement within specific work areas through small group problem-solving.

    • Reference: Page 139 (Standard 8.2 - Measurable Indicator 8.2.10, Key Area VIII), detailed description of its role and verification measures in Institutional Governance.

14. Exam Scrutiny committee:

    • Purpose: Addresses exam-related grievances and ensures fairness in the examination process.

    • Reference: Page 75 (Standard 2.5 - Measurable Indicator 2.5.10, Key Area II), page 72 (Standard 2.5 - Measurable Indicator 2.5.1, Key Area II), mentioned in the context of outcome analysis and exam scrutiny cell.

15. Feedback Implementation Committee:

    • * Purpose: To manage the process of implementing changes based on feedback received.

    • * Reference: Page 174 (Standard 10.5 - Measurable Indicator 10.5.1, Key Area X), Page 174 (Standard 10.5 - Measurable Indicator 10.5.1, Key Area X), central committee for managing and acting on feedback as described in Key Area X.

16. Anti-ragging committee:

    • Purpose: To prevent and address ragging incidents within the institution.

    • Reference: Page 127 (Standard 7.3 - Measurable Indicator 7.3.5, Key Area VII), responsible for anti-ragging measures and reporting.

17. Finance committee:

    • Purpose: Oversees financial matters, budgeting, and audit processes within the institution.

    • Reference: Page 148 (Standard 8.4 - Measurable Indicator 8.4.9, Key Area VIII), mentioned in the context of financial governance. Page 97 (Standard 4.2 - Measurable Indicator 4.2.5, Key Area IV), for verifying remuneration system audit.

List of Calculated Indicators in KUHS-QAS:

Key Area II: TEACHER PROFILE AND TEACHING LEARNING

• Standard 2.1: Teacher Profile

  • Indicator: 80% faculty available as per KUHS Norms

    • Calculation: (faculty available / total faculty as per norms) * 100

  • 
    

  • Indicator: 80% post graduate faculty

    • Calculation: (Total PG faculty / Total faculty) * 100

  • 
    

  • Indicator: 10% Doctoral/M.Phil faculty

    • Calculation: (Total PhD or Mphil faculty / total faculty) * 100

  • 
    

  • Indicator: Faculty representation in KUHS Academic Bodies

    • Calculation: (Total Faculty having representation / total faculty) * 100

  • 
    

  • Indicator: Teachers’ participation in University examination works

    • Calculation: (Total Faculty qualified for exam related work / total faculty) * 100

  • 
    

  • Indicator: Teachers’ participation in KUHS Inspection for Affiliation and Scrutiny

    • Calculation: (Total faculty appointed as inspectors / total faculty) * 100

  • 
    

  • Indicator: Teachers guiding student projects

    • Calculation: (Teachers qualified as guides / total faculty) * 100

• Standard 2.2: Teaching Methodology

  • Indicator: 80% of teachers using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools in teaching learning

    • Calculation: (Teachers using ICT enabled lecturers / total faculty) * 100

  • 
    

  • Indicator: 10% of teachers using Problem Based Learning(PBL)/Competency Based Learning

    • Calculation: (Teachers using PBL / total no: of teachers) * 100

  • 
    

  • Indicator: 10% of teachers using Self Directed Learning (SDL)/Peer teaching/reflective learning

    • Calculation: (Teachers using SDL or PT or RL / total no: of teachers) * 100

  • 
    

  • Indicator: 10% of teachers using Simulation based teaching

    • Calculation: (Teachers using Simulation / total faculty) * 100

Key Area III: CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING

• Standard 2.3: Learning Application

  • Indicator: Pass percentage per year (more than 50%)

    • Calculation: (No: of students passed / number appeared) * 100

  • Indicator: Only < 2%of drop outs from course

    • Calculation: Implied to be calculated by comparing students in permanent register vs. university convocation list to determine drop-out percentage.

Key Area IV: QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM

• Standard 4.5: Quality Indicators

  • Indicator: Bed occupancy rate

    • Calculation: patient bed days * 100 / (functional beds * days in month)

  • Indicator: Average length of stay

    • Calculation: patient bed days / total number of discharges

  • Indicator: Number of OP/IP Per month

    • Calculation: (number of outpatients per day * number of days in a month) + (number of IP as per daily census * number of days in a month)

  • Indicator: Staff Attrition rate

    • Calculation: (staff left the organisation / total staff in the category) * 100

  • Indicator: Library Utilization Index

    • Calculation: Average time spent in the library by students (Benchmarked at 15 hours /per student /per week)

  • Indicator: Students satisfaction score

    • Calculation: Average score for the parameters in the survey form (Benchmarked at >80% and not below 50%)

  • Indicator: Employees satisfaction score

    • Calculation: Average score for the parameters in the survey form (Benchmarked at >80% and not below 50%)

  • Indicator: % of performance appraisal done

    • Calculation: (performance appraisal done / total number of staff in that category) * 100

Key Area V: RESEARCH ENABLING ENVIRONMENT

• Standard 5.2: Research Support Services

  • Indicator: Minimum 1 publication per faculty per year in peer reviewed/indexed/ KUHS journals

    • Calculation: (Number of publications needs to be counted and divided by number of faculty to assess per faculty average. Requires assessment against a minimum of 1 publication per faculty per year).

  • Indicator: 50% of UG Projects published in last one year

    • Calculation: (Number of UG projects published / Total Number of UG Projects Completed last year) * 100

  • Indicator: 80% of PG Dissertation published in last one year

    • Calculation: (Number of PG Dissertations published / Total Number of PG Dissertations Completed last year) * 100

  • Indicator: 40% faculty available as PG/UG guides

    • Calculation: (Number of faculty eligible to be PG/UG guides / Total faculty) * 100

  • Indicator: 5% faculty available as PhD guides

    • Calculation: (Number of Ph.D faculty / Total faculty) * 100

Key Area X: FEEDBACK IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

• Standard 10.1: Stakeholders

  • Indicator: 20% placement through placement cell

    • Calculation: (Number of Students Placed through Placement Cell / Total Number of Graduating Students) * 100

• Standard 10.4: University

  • Indicator: Year wise Academic performance

    • Calculation: Year-wise result data to be compiled and presented for programs. Not a percentage calculation directly outlined, but requires result data compilation year wise.