External Verifier

Standardisation Meeting
Agenda, Minutes and QA Decision Log

Verification Group(s): 83, 95, 137, 138, 139, 140, 392, 462, 496

Date: 29/10/2022

Venue: Online (Teams)

Time: 9am – 3pm

 VERIFICATION GROUP/S: NUMBER and TITLE
83 Medical Lab science
95 Pharmaceutical science
137 Applied science
138 Physics
139 Chemistry
140 Biology
392 Applied Science Graded Unit
462 Life Sciences
496 Pharmacy Sciences
Verification

Verification
External Verifier in External Verifier Tendering an SQA Staff
Attendance Apology in
Group

Group
Attendance

Doug Fraser 83, 95, 137, Jodi Jenkins 95 Jonathan Gillies

138, 139, Keiran Stockwell
140, 392,
462, 496
Aileen Begley 95
Nicola Levitt 137, 140
Laura Young 137, 140
Susan Bunton 137, 140
 Marko Prurocic 137, 140,
392
Ann Murdoch 138
Leann Tait 139, 392
Marcus Mennie 139, 392
Mark Boyle 83, 462
Suzanne Thompson 496

Agenda Items, Minutes and Agreed Action Points.

Agenda Items Discussion Action QA Subject
Decision Decision Log
Log (yes/no)
(yes/no)
DF and MP welcomed all members and thanked for attending.
1. Welcome &
Introduction

2. Minutes of
Previous Meeting Minutes agreed as accurate.

DF provided update on EV award. VQ verifiers have been

assigned to undertake award this year.
 The issue which was causing delay for registration for HN
verifier award is being addressed, and it is expected that
colleagues will be invited to register this year.

3. Operational DF provided overview of Operational Update. Colleagues were

Update (HNVQ also directed to SWAY on SQA Hub
Appointee HUB)
Evaluating 2021-22 – generic review of last session. Approx
400 activities cancelled, over 150 reports returned after sign off
(tough none for science VGs)

Managing allocations
 EVs to notify SQA when unavailable, put “put of office” on
Outlook
 Schedule for release of allocations is from Sept to Feb.
Priority will be for events cancelled from 22-22
 EVs to contact all allocated centres by 14th April at latest.
 No activity for colleges beyond 31st May
QA activity 2022-23
• Default Virtual Verification
• Allocation in QAMS event will advise if visiting, virtual
or remote
• Visiting verification must be agreed by Juliette
McGinley/Elayne Reilly
• Visiting Approval must be agreed by Debby
McVey/Yvonne Beggs
• SQA will soon be recording candidate email information
and will be contacting candidates directly
• No access – guidance and process will be placed on the
hub
• Paper submission process will also be added to the hub
QV Changes and reminders
• All QV activity subject to candidate interview
All evidence must be submitted to SQA
operationshnvq@sqa.org.uk must be notified if EVs
given access to centre systems
Visit planning
• Sample (SCNs to be added to visit plan –can use centre
IDs instead, but must not use candidate names)
• Agreement on evidence submission detailed in agenda
of visit plan
• Interview requirements recorded
• Agree and record attendance at feedback events (ensure
are invited to meeting)
• operationshnvq@sqa.org.uk invited to each virtual
meeting
Visit reporting
• Candidate interview SCN and details recorded
• Provide reason for no interview being undertaken
• If interviewing cannot take place, provide an
explanation in ‘Discussion with Candidates’ area of QV
report. (NB. To allow you to type in the ‘Candidate
Interview’ comment area in QAMS you must click 'yes'
instead of 'no' in the candidate interview box. This will
allow you to type into the comment box to provide a
rationale as to why no candidate interviews took place.
Timelines
• Senior Sign off -After 5 working days QALO will
release
• QV acceptance - After 15 working days QALO will re-
allocate
• Virtual event planning – if no date scheduled after EV
 accepts allocation, then
• Automatic reminder – 3 weeks after accepting the
allocation
• Automatic reminder – 4 weeks after accepting the
allocation
• 5 weeks after accepting allocation – if no visit date has
been arranged, we will re-allocate
Virtual event planning – scheduled date but no visit plan
released
• Automatic reminder - 5 weeks prior to visit date
• Automatic reminder - 4 weeks prior to visit date
• QALO will call to discuss – 3 weeks prior to visit date

Non Engagement Policy

• If a centre fails to respond within 4 weeks refer to SQA.
SQA will chase centre and if still no engagement will be
suspended

Audit Requirements
Regulator highlighted a lack of sufficiency of evidence for
criteria 4.4 in Q+V reports. Additional guidance has been issued
to centres https://www.sqa.org.uk/files_ccc/qualification-
verification-criteria-guidance-centres.pdf
It is imperative that the requirements within the guidance is
referred to and used to measure compliance against criteria 4.4
when completing reports

Regulator also highlighted shortcomings in evidence provided

for compliance against 2.1. This criteria should not be signed
off by an EV unless all the evidence requirements are met and
are reviewed in line with the qualification requirements (actual
 evidence not just discussion)
For Direct Observations, where evidence requirements within
the assessment strategy state that 'Direct Observations' are
necessary, then this must be clearly evidenced by the centre and
reviewed by the EV before sign off.
Any 'Expert Witness' called on to oversee assessment must
meet the requirements of the qualification and be occupationally
specific to the unit. The 'Expert Witness' testimony must be
authenticated by the IV or assessor.
Please note that candidates should not be time bound in the
completion of the SVQ Qualification. Centres must not enforce
a timeline of completion as this reduces flexibility and
potentially creates a barrier for candidates.

4. Effective report Team members undertook workshop activities. All EVs also to complete activity
writing on Hub in HNVQ Appointees
There was also a discussion about possible sources of area “Exploring the QA criteria”.
Workshop – criteria evidence that could be used for criteria 4.3: Assessment
identification and instruments and methods and their selection and use must be DF to forward document with
rating exercise valid, reliable, practicable, equitable and fair. suggestions for 4.3 evidence to
all members
DF has compiled some suggestions and will send onto team
members for further comment. Was seen to be important that
EVs provide actual evidence in reports, rather than just
statements of confidence.
5. Review of last Non-engagement of centres was a real issue last year. Either EVs to inform Keiran and Juliette
year’s activity. failing to respond at all to initial contact, or failing to engage if non-engagement from centre.
Problem centres. with further requests to arrange visit dates, sample etc. In some
Concerns with cases evidence was only loaded up the night before visit. LT DF to follow up with Juliette re
 conduct of some stated that SQA officers were made aware repeatedly of these “centre of concern”
centres toward difficulties. There were felt to be issues with centres “running
EVs. down the clock”. One centre allocation did not occur at all
despite a very large amount of time spent by LT in trying to
arrange.

NL expressed frustration that a “red” rating, which had been

agreed with SQA was subsequently changed to “amber”
following intervention of centre coordinator. The correct rating
was red, and this was felt to undermine the EV.

MP stated that for one of his allocations he was informed by

the centre that the visit had been cancelled, though he had not
been informed by SQA

LT – particular difficulties were encountered with one centre,

conduct of centre staff and correspondence received
afterwards. There are ongoing concerns with this centre and
team strongly recommend they are visited this year (double
banked) for VG 137 as well as 139 again

In general there were seen to be a lot more issues in HN

verification last session than the norm. On VQ side things
seemed to be much better.

MB – generally less issues arose in VQ side, but there was

some difficulty with getting information from centres re quality
and quantity of evidence. “Covid adjustments” were in place in
previous sessions. Evidence gathered under adjustments
remains valid.

6. Schools activity There has been a substantial increase in uptake of NPAs in JG to forward possibilities for
(NPAs). Concerns schools sector. This has been very pleasing to see. The NPAs training events or materials that
raised from last present an excellent alternative to “traditional” NQs for many could be provided to support
year’s activity. How candidates. schools with NPAs
to support schools
going forward. However, there have been issues with staff from this sector KS to confirm with approvals
being unfamiliar with assessment approaches and IV team if minimum of one work
requirements on NC units. It is felt that support in terms of placement site should be
training and additional support materials would be highly useful required for FA approval.
here. Understanding standards documentation has already
been written for Experimental Procedures unit and will be
published shortly. QVSR is also to be written.

MB – raised the issue of centres seeking approvals for FA

where no work placement sites have been identified. JG
recommends a minimum of one site be identified for approval.
KS agreed, and to check with approvals team.

ST – have been some really good examples on the NPAs of

schools-colleges partnerships.

7. HN Grading DF queried if there were still planned to be retrospective

(Graded unit and verification of graded units and HN grading from session 21-22.
alternative KS was unaware if allocations would be issued.
approaches)
Use of alternative approaches were approached. It is possible
that alternatives will still be permitted when “covid adjustments”
have expired. Group felt that, in general, use of alternative
broader approach to grading was a positive development.
However, it was important that the overall body of work
required by candidates remained the same size. Concerns
expressed that some centres may be running a “27 credit” HNC
as a cost saving.
JG presented an update on HN next gen.
8. Next gen. Update Likely to be ca 2 years till science group awards are involved.
from QM and However science unit is in HND agricultural technology and is
review of QV subject to EQA this session. Will be a valuable learning
process experience.

Subject specific guidance was discussed. All group members

are In possession of this already.
9. Subject specific
guidance and When visit planning EVs should confirm with centres which
other QST units they are completing assessed practicals for. It is
feedback recommended that these units are used as part of sample.

ASP/Exemplar assessments must not be used for any open

book assessments – either supervised or unsupervised.
10. EV Roles and DF provided an overview of KPMs.
Responsibilities
Standardisation: SLAs as outlines in operation update.
 KPMs
 SLAs
 Related
Duties

11. Priors A number of group members stated that there was an ongoing EVs to notify QALO if they feel
Verification requests issue with very poor standard of “prior” submissions, and from intervention is required due to
one centre in particular. This is not a case of a poor standard of prior
misunderstanding of the prior system requirements, but rather submissions
simply a lack of care and attention. It feels that the prior system
is being misused to get EVs to effectively write assessments for
centres.
 Was agreed that EVs will notify QALO is they feel intervention
is required.
12. PDP/CPDR PDP and CPDR requirements were reviewed.

Training requests
13. AOCB None

Quality Assurance Decision Log

Verification SEV Name

Group
Session Date Produced

Decision Agreed Timeline Date

No.
Action or Target (SMART) Responsibility SEV Signature Sign off
or Date Completed

Quality Assurance Processes

All EVs also to complete activity on Hub End November.
1 in HNVQ Appointees area “Exploring the
QA criteria”.
All EVs

2 End November DF
 DF to forward document with suggestions
for 4.3 evidence to all members

3 Through 2022-23 All EVs

EVs to inform Keiran and Juliette if non-

engagement from centre.

4 31/10 DF

DF to follow up with Juliette re “centre of

concern

5 JG to forward possibilities for training 31/10 JG

events or materials that could be
provided to support schools with NPAs

6 14/11 KS
KS to confirm with approvals team if
minimum of one work placement site
should be required for FA approval.

7 EVs to notify QALO if they feel Through 2022-23 All EVs

intervention is required due to poor
standard of prior submissions