Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
18 August 2025 | Story André Damons | Photo André Damons
Prof Hanneke Brits
Prof Gert van Zyl, Dean for the Faculty of Health Sciences, Prof Hanneke Brits, a family medicine specialist at the Free State Department of Health, as well as the Department of Family Medicine at the University of the Free State (UFS), Prof Anthea Rhoda, Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Academic, and Prof Nicholas Pearce, Head of the School of Clinical Medicine before the inaugural lecture.

Universities have an obligation to ensure that their assessments are sound and defendable when they confer degrees for professional qualifications, such as in medicine. Can institutions confidently defend these results and what are the implications if they pass a student who is not competent?

These were some of the questions Prof Hanneke Brits, a family medicine specialist at the Free State Department of Health, as well as the Department of Family Medicine, at the University of the Free State (UFS), addressed during her inaugural lecture on Tuesday (12 August). The UFS, she concluded at the end of her lecture, titled To pass or not to pass: Can we confidently defend the outcome of our assessments? can defend its clinical assessments with the implementation of effective workplace-based assessment and trained examiners. 

 

The implications of passing incompetent students 

According to Prof Brits, who has supervised numerous undergraduate and postgraduate student research projects, she chose this topic because decisions have consequences. She gave an overview of the assessments in the clinical years of the undergraduate medical programme. In so doing, she also answered other questions including what may happen when universities pass students who are not competent and what may happen if they fail competent students. When the university passed a candidate, she said, that candidate may register with a professional body like the Health Professions Council of South Africa to work as a doctor. 

“What are the implications if we fail to fail a student who is not competent? The implications are that patients may suffer if they are treated by an incompetent doctor, which may lead to the doctor running into trouble if it is found that their work is not up to standard. This may further lead the faculty being labelled as poor for training substandard doctors. 

“The throughput rate of the university may go down and the university may not get subsidy for the students. The student must repeat his module with a lot of emotional and financial burden. They public may suffer because there are not enough healthcare professionals to treat them. Therefore, we must get this right,” she said. 

When assessing students, assessors should start at the bottom: students should know, then they should know how, then they should show how and then they must do. All assessments should meet the basic requirements of validity, reliability, fairness, educational impact and feasibility, explains Prof Brits. 

 

Workplace-based training and assessment

During her PhD study, she looked specifically at assessments in the clinical years of the undergraduate medical programme. “It is quite complicated,” said Prof Brits, “to do assessment for professional qualifications as you need to obey to the rules and regulations of the Department of Education, the Department of Health, the Health Professions Council of South Africa, the Colleges of Medicine of South Africa because they are our examining body, as well as our own university rules and international assessment guidelines and best practices.” 

She compiled a framework to measure what they do at the UFS and found that the decision reliability was excellent – meaning the students that passed during the year passed at the end of the year and those that failed, failed. The reliability of some of the methods used for the final assessment was not good, however, if more assessments with supplementary exams were included, it was better. 

The conclusion of her study was that the UFS mostly complied with the regulations of the regulatory bodies. The recommendation from this study was to implement workplace-based assessment (WBA) to improve both the validity and reliability of assessments and to make it more defendable. Prof Brits explained that WBA is where students get regular assessment and feedback while they work and receive training in hospitals or clinics. “For example, the student is seeing a patient in the emergency department who was stabbed with a knife on his hand. Is the student able to assess the severity, can the student manage the wound and what about follow-up? 

“The advantage of WBA is that we train in real life situations and manage conditions that occur commonly. In real life situations, students use many senses while learning, e.g., seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, which all enhance knowledge retention. It is important that students receive feedback and that we document these encounters. To ensure a holistic approach to the management of patients we use Entrustable Professional Activities or EPAs – something that I can trust a person to do. It is a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes.”

News Archive

Council on Higher Education LLB qualification review not yet complete
2017-05-16

The reaction from various stakeholders following the ‘Outcomes of the National Review of the LLB Qualification’ by the Council on Higher Education (CHE) on 12 April 2017 requires the CHE to clarify that the national review process has not been completed and is ongoing.

The peer-review process conducted under the auspices of the CHE is based on the LLB Standards Document which was developed in 2014-2015 with input from higher-education institutions and the organised legal profession. Following self-review and site visits by peers, the process is now at the point where commendations and shortcomings have been identified, and the statement of 12 April reflects those findings. All law faculties and schools have been asked to improve their LLB programmes to meet the LLB Standard, and no LLB programme has been de-accredited. All institutions retain the accreditation they had before the Review process began and all institutions are working towards retaining their accreditation and improving their LLB programmes.

The South African Law Deans’ Association (SALDA) has issued a set of responses regarding the LLB programme review. The following questions and answers were published to give more clarity on the questions raised.

1.    What is the effect of a finding of conditional accreditation?
The programme remains accredited.

(“Accreditation refers to a recognition status granted to a programme for a stipulated period of time after an HEQC evaluation indicates that it meets minimum standards of quality.”)

The institution must submit a progress report by 6 October 2017 that indicates how short-term aspects raised in the HEQC reports have been addressed and an improvement plan to indicate how longer-term aspects will be addressed.

2.    What is the effect of a finding of notice of withdrawal of accreditation?
The programme remains accredited.

The institution must submit an improvement plan by 6 October 2017 to indicate how the issues raised in the HEQC report will be addressed, including time frames.

3.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect current students?
Students currently enrolled for the LLB programme at any institution are not affected at all. They will graduate with an accredited qualification.

4.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect new applicants?
The programmes remain accredited and institutions may enrol new students as usual. This also includes students completing BA/BCom (Law) programmes who wish to continue with the LLB programme.

5.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect prior graduates?
Degrees previously conferred are not affected.

6.    What happens when the improvement plans are submitted in October 2017?
The CHE will evaluate the plans when they are submitted, and the programmes remain accredited until a decision is taken whether the improvement plan is sufficient and has been fully given effect to or not. The institutions will have to submit progress reports to the CHE indicating implementation of measures contained in the improvement plan.

Should a decision at some stage be taken that a programme’s accreditation must be withdrawn, a teaching-out plan would be implemented so that all enrolled students would have the opportunity to graduate with an accredited degree.

For more information on the CHE’s pronouncement please contact Moleboheng Moshe-Bereng on MosheBerengMF@ufs.ac.za.

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