QAA's Edinburgh Napier TQER report, and why student voice evidence needs a clearer action trail

Updated Sep 07, 2026

QAA’s 23 April 2026 announcement reports a positive overall judgement for Edinburgh Napier University alongside recommendations about student concerns and quality review. This is an institution-specific Scottish Tertiary Quality Enhancement Review (TQER), rather than a new UK-wide requirement. QAA announcement.

The judgement and recommendations

The review team found the university effective in managing academic standards, enhancing the learning experience and enabling student success. Its visits took place on 1–2 December 2025 and 26–29 January 2026. The five reviewers included a student. Six areas of good practice included Student Consultant roles, partnership working and developments in monitoring data. Review report, printed pages 1–2.

QAA also recommended that the university:

• Review online MSc Nursing clinical placement experiences with students by December 2026, and strengthen routes for receiving, responding to and overseeing placement concerns.
• Make its responses to student feedback more visible and consistent.
• Improve annual programme and module reporting, including oversight of missing returns.
• Approve and implement a cyclical review of the whole postgraduate research experience by the end of academic session 2026–27.

These are recommendations recorded at review, not confirmation that subsequent actions have been completed. Recommendations, printed page 3.

Applying the case to local feedback practice

Our practical suggestion is to follow a concern through the institution’s existing process: who receives it, where it is recorded, who decides the response, and how students learn what happened. For placement concerns, establish the relevant operational or safeguarding route before considering aggregate analysis. A serious individual report should not wait for a recurring theme to emerge.

Keep the positive judgement and recommendations together when discussing this case. The existence of an improvement recommendation does not establish a regulatory breach or failure across the university. Equally, a positive institutional outcome does not remove the need to address the identified concerns.

When analysing comments, preserve collection dates and context, restrict access to identifiable material, and compare findings with action records. A change in sentiment cannot by itself show that a recommendation was implemented. The student comment analysis governance checklist provides questions for that local review.

Review note, 7 September 2026: checked the official announcement and the report’s review, judgement and recommendation sections. Clarified the Scottish, institution-specific scope and separated recommendations from subsequent implementation and our own practical advice.