{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-8dae6b3b9e2428d5","slug":"2024-04-02-using-root-cause-analysis-to-improve-student-wellbeing","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2024-04-02","last_modified_date":"2024-04-02","title":"Using root-cause analysis to improve student wellbeing","summary":"Provides an evidence-led method for improving using root-cause analysis to improve student wellbeing, from definition of the problem to review of effectiveness and residual risk.","category":{"code":"QUALITY_IMPROVEMENT_METHODS","label":"Quality Improvement Methods"},"article_type":"Quality improvement method","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"Post-pandemic system performance and participation","reference_authority":"competent international public-health and education authorities","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["Against the background of the post-pandemic system performance and participation, education authorities and providers should review how root-cause analysis to improve student wellbeing is defined, implemented and evidenced. For the improvement objective, improvement should begin with a defined problem, a credible account of its causes and a measure capable of showing whether the response has worked. Consequential decisions should be considered in light of learner impact, institutional duty and stewardship of educational resources. In relation to using root-cause analysis to improve student wellbeing, the appropriate administrative form will depend on the jurisdiction and the allocation of lawful responsibility.","The circumstances described by the post-pandemic system performance and participation are developing and may differ materially between locations. Decisions on the improvement objective should therefore be based on verified information available for the affected community and should be reviewed as conditions change. Temporary measures require recorded authority, learner communication and an end or review point; urgency does not remove the need to preserve safety, fair treatment and reliable records.","Implementation of the improvement objective should be organised around a decision that can be tested. A decision concerning the intervention should recognise that the intervention should be tested on a scale proportionate to the risk before wider implementation, unless immediate system-wide action is necessary to protect learners. Oversight requires a traceable line from the approved objective through responsible action to evidence of outcome."]},{"heading":"Defining the problem","paragraphs":["The quality significance of root-cause analysis to improve student wellbeing follows from a basic distinction between availability and effective provision. In reviewing the intervention, learners should receive accurate information, safe provision, timely support and a fair route to raise concerns without adverse treatment.","The analysis of the improvement objective should make its decision rule explicit. For the intervention, cause analysis should explain why the condition occurred and why existing controls did not prevent or detect it. Restating the event, assigning blame or identifying the last person involved does not establish a root cause. The method should prevent an unfavourable result from being dismissed through an unrecorded change in interpretation.","Failure in relation to the practice may arise even where the stated policy is reasonable. Material concerns include vulnerable learners not identified, complaints discouraged or delayed, material information provided too late, and remedies that do not correct systemic causes. An exception should be assessed by effect, duration, recurrence and reach, including possible exposure beyond the initial sample.","Assurance of the practice should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include evidence that remedies and corrective actions were completed, conflict declarations, analysis of recurring issues, complaint, review and appeal records, and public information and change notices."]},{"heading":"Improvement method","paragraphs":["The review method for root-cause analysis to improve student wellbeing should be reproducible. For the intervention, the reviewer should reconstruct the sequence, test contributing conditions, compare affected and unaffected cases, and identify the control failure that can be changed. Confirm the explanation against evidence before selecting corrective action. The retained analysis should be reproducible from the selected evidence, decision rule and recorded reasons for accepted exceptions.","A decision to close improvement work on the corrective programme should be made by a person with authority and sufficient independence from implementation.","Decisions concerning the improvement objective should remain traceable to the information available for the stated reference period. In relation to using root-cause analysis to improve student wellbeing, changes in condition, evidence, method and interpretation should be recorded separately when a conclusion is revised. Transparent treatment of reporting changes prevents artificial movement from being read as substantive progress or decline."]},{"heading":"Measures and review","paragraphs":["Proportionality in relation to root-cause analysis to improve student wellbeing does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. The analysis of the issue under review proceeds on the basis that a low complaint count may indicate effective provision, but it may also reflect inaccessible processes, fear of consequences or lack of awareness. Additional evidence is required. For the improvement objective, correcting an individual record does not establish that the process which produced the error has been corrected. No exception should continue without a documented basis, accountable approval and scheduled review.","Public reporting on the practice should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Revision history should remain available where users have relied on the earlier conclusion. If definitions, coverage or evidence alter an earlier conclusion, the reason should be stated so that revision is not mistaken for changed performance.","The appropriate response to the corrective programme is therefore one of controlled implementation and review. The decision record should state the unsupported element and the further work required."]}],"word_count":756,"content_hash":"sha256-acb6daca82db620930ca48aa4ff489dd023e9305f6b833031b489a6b9bb1723a","seo_keywords":["using root-cause analysis to improve student wellbeing","education quality improvement","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}