Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
23 April 2020 | Story Prof Francis Petersen | Photo Sonia Small

The COVID-19 pandemic has created profound disruptions in our economy and society.  Due to the challenges of this pandemic, most universities have decided to move from face-to-face classes to online teaching (more accurately defined as emergency remote teaching and learning) so as to complete the 2020 academic year, and to prevent the spread of the virus.

Online learning vs emergency teaching and learning
Online learning is the result of careful instructional design and planning, using a systematic model for design and development.  With remote emergency teaching and learning, this careful design process is absent.  Careful planning for online learning includes not just identifying the content to be covered, but also how to support the type of interactions that are important to the learning process.  Planning, preparation, and development time for a fully online university course typically takes six to nine months before the course is delivered.

Emergency teaching and learning is a temporary shift of instructional delivery to an alternative delivery mode due to crisis conditions.  Hence, one cannot equate emergency remote teaching and learning with online learning, nor should one compare emergency remote teaching and learning with face-to-face teaching. What is crucial is the quality of the mode of delivery, and although assessment methodologies will differ between face-to-face teaching and remote teaching and learning, the quality of the learning outcomes should be comparable.

Funding to universities 
The financial model used in a South African (residential) university consists of three main income sources: (i) the state or government through a subsidy (the so-called ‘block grant’), (ii) tuition fees, and (iii) third-stream income (which is mainly a cost-recovery component from contract research, donations, and interest on university investments). The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) contributes to the tuition fees through a Department of Higher Education, Science and Innovation Bursary Scheme, providing fully subsidised free higher education and training for poor and working-class South Africans (recipients will typically be students from households with a combined income less than R350 k per annum).  

The negative impact of COVID-19 on the income drivers of the university can, and probably will, be severe.  Although the subsidy from the state or government can be ‘protected’ for a cycle of two to three years through the National Treasury, the pressure on income derived from tuition fees (that component which is not funded through NSFAS) will be increasing, as households would have been affected by the nationwide lockdown and with the economy in deep recession, a significant number of jobs would have been lost. The economic downturn, due to both COVID19 and a sovereign downgrade by all rating agencies, has already negatively impacted local financial markets as well as the global economy. The multiplier effect of this would be that the value of investments and endowments decreases (at the time of writing the JSE was still 20% down compared to the previous year), and philanthropic organisations and foundations will most probably reduce or even terminate ‘givings’ to universities.

Industry, private sector, and commerce will re-assess their funding to universities, whether for research or bursary support.  Overall, it is possible that the income sources for universities can be affected negatively in the short term, but it will definitely have longer-term implications on the financial sustainability of universities.  In this regard, it would be important for universities to perform scenario planning on the long-term impact of COVID-19 on the financial position of the university, and to adjust their strategic plans accordingly.

By Prof Francis Petersen is Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State.
 

News Archive

Heart diseases a time bomb in Africa, says UFS expert
2010-05-17

 Prof. Francis Smit

There are a lot of cardiac problems in Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa is home to the largest population of rheumatic heart disease patients in the world and therefore hosts the largest rheumatic heart valve population in the world. They are more than one million, compared to 33 000 in the whole of the industrialised world, says Prof. Francis Smit, Head of the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of the Free State (UFS).

He delivered an inaugural lecture on the topic Cardiothoracic Surgery: Complex simplicity, or simple complexity?

“We are also sitting on a time bomb of ischemic heart disease with the WHO (World Health Organisation) estimating that CAD (coronary artery disease) will become the number-one killer in our region by 2020. HIV/Aids is expected to go down to number 7.”

Very little is done about it. There is neither a clear nor coordinated programme to address this expected epidemic and CAD is regarded as an expensive disease, confined to Caucasians in the industrialised world. “We are ignoring alarming statistics about incidences of adult obesity, diabetes and endemic hypertension in our black population and a rising incidence of coronary artery interventions and incidents in our indigenous population,” Prof. Smit says.

Outside South Africa – with 44 units – very few units (about seven) perform low volumes of basic cardiac surgery. The South African units at all academic institutions are under severe threat and about 70% of cardiac procedures are performed in the private sector.

He says the main challenge in Africa has become sustainability, which needs to be addressed through education. Cardiothoracic surgery must become part of everyday surgery in Africa through alternative education programmes. That will make this specialty relevant at all levels of healthcare and it must be involved in resource allocation to medicine in general and cardiothoracic surgery specifically.

The African surgeon should make the maximum impact at the lowest possible cost to as many people in a society as possible. “Our training in fields like intensive care and insight into pulmonology, gastroenterology and cardiology give us the possibility of expanding our roles in African medicine. We must also remember that we are trained physicians as well.

“Should people die or suffer tremendously while we can train a group of surgical specialists or retraining general surgeons to expand our impact on cardiothoracic disease in Africa using available technology maybe more creatively? We have made great progress in establishing an African School for Cardiothoracic Surgery.”

Prof. Smit also highlighted the role of the annual Hannes Meyer National Registrar Symposium that culminated in having an eight-strong international panel sponsored by the ICC of EACTS to present a scientific course as well as advanced surgical techniques in conjunction with the Hannes Meyer Symposium in 2010.

Prof. Smit says South Africa is fast becoming the driving force in cardiothoracic surgery in Africa. South Africa is the only country that has the knowledge, technology and skills base to act as the springboard for the development of cardiothoracic surgery in Africa.

South Africa, however, is experiencing its own problems. Mortality has doubled in the years from 1997 to 2005 and half the population in the Free State dies between 40 to 44 years of age.

“If we do not need health professionals to determine the quality and quantity of service delivery to the population and do not want to involve them in this process, we can get rid of them, but then the political leaders making that decision must accept responsibility for the clinical outcomes and life expectancies of their fellow citizens.

“We surely cannot expect to impose the same medical legal principles on professionals working in unsafe hospitals and who have complained and made authorities aware of these conditions than upon those working in functional institutions. Either fixes the institutions or indemnifies medical personnel working in these conditions and defends the decision publicly.

“Why do I have to choose the three out of four patients that cannot have a lifesaving operation and will have to die on their own while the system pretends to deliver treatment to all?”

Prof. Smit says developing a service package with guidelines in the public domain will go a long way towards addressing this issue. It is also about time that we have to admit that things are simply not the same. Standards are deteriorating and training outcomes are or will be affected.

The people who make decisions that affect healthcare service delivery and outcomes, the quality of training platforms and research, in a word, the future of South African medicine, firstly need rules and boundaries. He also suggested that maybe the government should develop health policy in the public domain and then outsource healthcare delivery to people who can actually deliver including thousands of experts employed but ignored by the State at present.

“It is time that we all have to accept our responsibilities at all levels… and act decisively on matters that will determine the quality and quantity of medical care for this and future generations in South Africa and Africa. Time is running out,” Prof. Smit says.
 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept