Petroleum Driver Passport (PDP) Quality Assurance Annual Report 2015/16

Petroleum Driver Passport (PDP) Quality Assurance Annual Report 2015/16

Contents

Petroleum Driver Passport (PDP) Quality Assurance Annual Report 2015/16

1 General Overview

2Verification Activity

3Invigilation Activity

4Administration Activity and Approval of Providers /Appointees

5Summary & Recommendations

1General Overview

The purpose of this report is to provide feedback to training providers and stakeholders on the verification and invigilation activity undertaken during quarters 2,3 and 4 of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016.

During this period PDP became live in Northern Ireland.

Defence PDP was also introduced for both classroom and practical elements of PDP. The classroom element of Defence PDP covers the same syllabus and examination regime as the standard civilian PDP, whilst the practical element of defence PDP does not cover the loading element of petroleum fuels. The candidates demonstrate practical competence utilising a purpose designed training facility and industry standard equipment at the Defence School of Transport at Leconfield. SQA has worked closely with industry, the PDP management group, and DODF to ensure that candidates undertake realistic and relevant training, and are assessed in a controlled environment which replicates the requirements of real-life petroleum distribution.

Overall, this year experience of the External Verification (EV) team has been positive, with the quality of classroom and practical training being good and in the main delivered by knowledgeable and experienced trainers. At most providers, the External Verifiers found materials that were well presented and stored correctly. Again this year the recurring development areahas been the administration of the scheme, particularly in terms of compliance with start timings, examination timings and delivery locations. Weakness in this area has led to the issue of the majority of Grade 3 visit reports. Operational requirements within companies have often led to last-minute changes of attendees which have not always been reflected adequately in database entries for the course.

In the main, the concern thatthe EV team raised in last year relating tomaintenance of quality control and administration procedures within organisations with multiple delivery locations and multiple appointees has been addressed with much good practice, however some providers have displayed a lack of structured quality control and standardisation. There is much good practice within many organisations both large and small, involving standardisation meetings and appointee involvement.Providers however,should again be reminded that during administration visits evidence will need to be presentedshowing standardisation activity and internal verification activity commensurate with the size of the organisation, and the numbers of sitesand appointees under their control. Verification visits where this is found to be the case will form the focus of ongoing administration visits. Training providers should also be aware that the activities of one appointee could affect the entire provider.

1.1Standardisation

In order to achieve a consistent approach four standardisation meetings have been held and a StandardisationRecord Document (SRD) used to record discussions and decisions. This has been produced with the following aims:

• New members joining the group get up to speed more quickly on the main issues as they can see all of the past decisions the group has made on one record.
• New decisions can be added to the record when required without a physical meeting having to take place, ensuring a more timely consistent agreement is achieved for more urgent items.
• All main decisions relating to verifying a qualification(s) are in one place and therefore an effective as one-stop-shop reference point for group members and SQA staff.
• The SRD places an important focus on standardisation reached by PDP External Verification Group member agreement – promoting cross-group consistency.

On several occasions feedback from the EV meetings to the PDP Management Group has been given, and the Senior External Verifier (SEV) has attended PDPManagement group meetings, in order to clarify issues and concerns raised by the EV team and training providers. This has assisted in the review of the Manual of Practice, to reflect and address these issues.

The SEV also carried out a range of and quality assurance visits with the EV team, the purpose of these are to ensure a standard approach and resolve areas of differing understanding, whilst reviewing the performance of each EV

2Verification Activity

Verification activity has been undertaken during the year by the team of External Verifiers. This has involved unannounced visits to providers during which training activity has been observed and content has been verified. During these activities instructor approval has also been undertaken with support and guidance offered to training providers, staff and trainers. Where necessary follow up and administration visits have been undertaken.

2.1Venues & Facilities

In the main facilities have been of a good standard with existing training providers utilising classrooms already approved for ADR. PDP only providers have used their own in house training rooms orused training roomsand conference facilities in transport yards and terminals of appropriate size for the numbers of candidates, which in the main have been small groups of 2-4. Issues with facilities have been minimal as providers have become more experienced with the delivery of the scheme and its requirements.

2.2Training Courses

Whilst some providers have utilised proprietary courses, most providers have used training courses developed in house and adapted from existing materials. The quality of these training materials is generally good, however concern must be raised over some which are excessively wordy and lengthy. Where this has been identified feedback has been made to the training provider. Such lengthy materials appear to be aimed at ensuring the companies have covered all bases in passing information to their employees. These courses leave little room for appointees to do anything other than read from the screen.

Some providers have made significant changes to training materials over the year which have not been communicated to SQA for re-approval. Providers are reminded that where significant changes are made to training courses these must be submitted for approval prior to commencement of use. Failure to do so could jeopardise approval status.

Many providers have adapted the course to fit within the framework of Driver Certificate of Professional Competence (DCPC), in order that drivers can utilise both the classroom and practical sessions to accumulate periodic training hours. This again has caused a number of difficulties for EVs as the two qualifications do not sit comfortably together, particularly in terms of course timings. This has been fed back to the PDP Management Group for action in future versions of the Manual of Practice. In the meantime it remains important that providers read section 6.4 of the Manual of Practice and structure training appropriately.

This year EVs and training providers alike, have again commented that the scope of the Annual Training (21T) is very vague and that the syllabus should be more specific, including at least core areas such as legislative updates and safety focused content. Clarification on this point is being developed by the PDP Management Group, including the future desirability of the Annual Classroom element of PDP, however at present,it should be noted that the duration of Annual Classroom training should containa minimum of one hour of PDP related content.

A further issue in relation to the interface with DCPC has arisen through the incorporation of non PDP training materials in a seven hour training course, including PDP and other DCPC topics. Whilst section 7.2 of the Scheme Manual states that the training materials should be free of extraneous content, many providers follow the model where additional material on drivers hours etc. is included in the course, to meet the up to a sevenhour DCPC day requirement. The PDP Management group have clarified that it is perfectly acceptable to incorporate PDP content into any form of DCPC or in house training, as long as the PDP syllabus is covered when integrated within the wider context of the training day. Where this is done training providers must ensure that all of the PDP syllabus is adequately covered, and that sufficient time is allocated to the PDP elements of the programme particularly when delivering 25W programmes.

2.3Practical Courses

Significantly more verification activity has taken place for the practical component of the scheme this year due to whistleblowing feedback. The practicalities of gaining entry to safety critical areas in terminals and on customer sites hasbeen acknowledged by the verifiers, and the emphasis of verification activity has been placed upon the process of practical assessment rather than close quarters observation. In particular this relates to the loading and unloading elements of the practical where the close proximity of additional personnel may lead to safety risks or distractions.

Again, in general this year the practical elements of PDP have been delivered by in-house assessors and senior drivers who have been approved by SQA. Assessments have generally been well delivered and well documented and have ranged from a minimum 2 hours, as stated in the Scheme Manual, through to the assessor accompanying the driver on a full shift and observing multiple loadings and deliveries. Again, it is important for providers to remember the practical assessments should take place in an environment which is the candidate’s normal working environment. Throughout this year some issues have arisen where drivers have been assessed on equipment unfamiliar to them, which has led to an inability to demonstrate competence in all of the learning outcomes and/or the intervention of the assessor to perform training activities. Providers should remember that the practical is an assessment of knowledge and skills, rather than a training exercise.

One recurring issue has been providers adding courses to the database detailing multiple drivers for a single practical course starting at one time. Providers are reminded that practical courses should only include one driver per course and that the start time should be individual to that course. Additionally the starting location of the practical course must be clearly shown.

2.4Materials/ References

The quality of materials and handouts given to candidates as detailed in theScheme Manual of Practice, section 7.6 has been variable. Most of the larger companies when training in-house continue to utilise a company handbook rather than issuing separate and possibly contradictory course handouts during PDP training sessions. It should be clarified that the requirement for handouts is that they are given in a format which is capable of lasting 5 years as reference material for the candidates. As such, these materials should be distributed during the five-year full PDP course. It is not expectedthat full handouts be issued during annual and practical elements, however, appropriate updates may be required.

2.5Instructors & Delivery

Some concerns have been raised by the EV team and by employers asemployers as to the in-depth knowledge of instructional staff. This is been particularly relevant to those instructors who were accepted for the delivery of classroom elements of PDP on the strength of their existing ADR instructor approval. Whilst generally the classroom and training ability of these instructors is excellent, several have demonstrated a lack of in-depth knowledge of the practicalities of petroleum fuel distribution. They have therefore found it challenging when questioned on issues such as loading and unloading procedures by experienced drivers. Where this has been brought to the attention of SQA and individual providers, and instructors identified verification visits have been arranged and remedial action instigated. Conversely, in-house trainers who are experienced petroleum distribution drivers have demonstrated an excellent in-depth knowledge of the industry. However, their classroom technique in relation to the delivery of an effective presentation and the checking of knowledge on occasion has been at times lacking.

Training providers are reminded that instructors and assessors should undertake regular continuous professional development activities, and as part of their own internal review and quality assurance processes, they should identify such deficiencies and instigate remedial action immediately.

3Invigilation Activity

Invigilation of examinations has been undertaken throughout the year, on an unannounced basis by the EV team. Invigilator visits have largely been in conjunction with verification visits. The EVs have observedproviders’ invigilation of examinations and have also on occasion used the Invigilator examination papers.

3.1Course Examinations

Generally, there have been no significant concerns over examinations. The main concern has been administration in terms of the correct start time for examinations being adhered to.

Occasional issues have arisen with regards to the safekeeping of examination papers in providers with multiple appointees and sites. In particular, on one occasion an appointee was found to be using examination papers as a check test during an annual PDP refresher course. Providers are reminded that such use is a clear contravention of the Scheme Manual and action will be taken where this is found to be the case.

During the past year the question bank was reviewed to reflect legislative changes, the breadth of PDP, and feedback from providers. No significant problems have been expressed by providers in relation to the revisedquestion bank.

4Administration Activity and Approval of Providers /Appointees

Administration visits have been carried out throughout the year in order to verify compliance with the requirements of the Scheme Manual of Practice. Administration visits also provide the EV team to confirm that providers are knowledgeable on the use of the SQA database and are able to maintain it as per their needs.

Items covered during an Administration visit include training provider records, course marketing materials, quality assurance and standardisation, site facilities, examination processes and security, general administration and database administration

Over the past year, the administration visits have focused on the internal quality control procedures of providers, and in particular in multiple site/multiple appointeeproviders, on the standardisation and internal quality assurance procedures adopted.

Administration visits have also given the training providers an opportunity to clarify many points and feedback through the EVs to SQA and the management group.

New providers have continued to receive an approval visit by the PDP EV team, where they are not already approved to deliver ADR. These have included some new training providers, but in the main new providers have been small and medium-sized oil distributors, particularly those in Northern Ireland who have required some support and guidance in the practicalities of delivering and administering a robust training and assessment regime.

The initiation of the Defence PDP programme has also required the individual approval of a number of practical assessors being carried out by the SQA EV team. All Defence PDP practical assessors have undergone a demonstration of competence and a demonstration of assessment by SQA EVs prior to being accepted as appointees.

4.1Documentation

Once more, the most common and basic issue encountered by the EV team during visits has been a lack of possession of a current Scheme Manual of Practice by providers, and in particular appointees delivering training. It should be pointed out that this is a basic requirement of the scheme and all appointees should not only be in possession of the Manual of Practice, but be aware of its contents.

4.2Quality Assurance

Whilst many providershave robust and well developed quality control systems, there remains a concern that some providers, particularly those with multiple delivery locations and multiple appointees have deficiencies in the control, quality assurance and standardisation of the programme. This has led to a number of providers delivering differing training courses at different sites. Training Providers should be clear that during administration visits evidence will need to be viewed showing standardisation and quality control activity commensurate with the size of the organisation and the number of sites and appointees under their control. Key components of standardisation may include, but are not limited to; internal staff training records, observations of learning, standardisation meetings, document control, staff appraisal, and records of continuous professional development.

4.3Database Administration

During the year database administration has been checked, not only during administration visits, but also prior to verification and invigilation visits by the EV team. In general, most providers are uploading all relevant documentation onto the database. However, it is apparent that some providers are deficient in keeping this up-to-date. This is particularly evident in the updating of annually recurring and renewing items such as employers liability insurance. Providers again are reminded that it is their responsibility to maintain the database with up-to-date information.

4.4General Administration

Again this year the discipline of providers in relation to the running of courses at times and locations which correspond to those listed on the database has on many occasions found to be lacking. Training providers are reminded that courses including a practical should start at the time specified on the database, from the location specified on the database. When booking courses on the database where a classroom based course is followed by the assessment of several candidates, the classroom start time should be booked and the start time and location of each individual candidate’s practical booked separately. Whilst work conditions and pressures may result in some variance in start times, this is expected to be taken into account when planning the courses and a realistic and accurate start time and location specified. Whilst it is understood that commercial and operational pressures can affect the delivery of PDP, it should be made clear that PDP and in particular the practical element of PDP must be a planned event and not an afterthought to the day’s operational work.It is also clearthat occasionally there is a breakdown of communication between training, administration staff and operational staff when planning practical assessments, thus leading to start times being allocated on the database, which are actually not in correspondence with the shift start times of the assessor or candidate. This deficiency is not specific to any particular provider but seems to be widespread and requires careful management by all providers.