Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Example Validation/Verification SQF System audit vs. PRP audit

SQF System Audit PRP Audit Validation Verification

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 sqflady

sqflady

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 40 posts
  • 8 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 30 October 2014 - 08:28 PM

I know there are a lot of posts on this site regarding verification and validation.  Looking at the posts and schedules and examples has me very confused! 

 

Can anyone share an example showing me how they verify their SQF System and how to verify and validate CCPs and PRPs? 


  • 0

#2 RG3

RG3

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 501 posts
  • 154 thanks
70
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" Albert Einstein

Posted 30 October 2014 - 09:37 PM

Here's some examples, hope this helps steer you in the right direction.

 

Example of Validating a Metal Detector as your CCP:

 

I passed each metal detectable rod (ferrous, non-ferrous, and stainless steel) through the metal detector in various locations of the product 100x each while production was running. Make sure to keep your raw data. Summarize your findings including when you did it, the serial number of the metal detector, what products were run, how many products pass through, test pieces used etc.

 

(Correct Rejects/Total Seeded samples) X 100% = % Probability Detection

 

Example of Validating PRP:

 

Description: Pest Control

 

Method for Validation:  (1) A Pest Control Activity trend report was made and reviewed for a 12 month period beginning January 2013 and ending on December 2013.In December 2013,  dumpster lid was found to be open. No evidence of repeat minor non-conformances or major deficiencies in the program can occur for the prerequisite program to be considered valid. (2) A set of business cards are numbered and placed in various random traps.

 

Results of Validation: (1) Pest control service reports from 1/16/13 to 03/31/14 were pulled and reviewed. No major incident reported, only dumpster lid open. (2) The set of business cards are retrieved successfully. Pest control practice is considered effective. Pest Control service provider is xxx, and they meet SQF code standards.


  • 1

Thanked by 2 Members:

#3 sqflady

sqflady

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 40 posts
  • 8 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 30 October 2014 - 09:48 PM

Thank you!  I get the concept.  What is the best way to go about this?  Are you using a checklist or just writing it out in paragraph format? 


  • 0

#4 RG3

RG3

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 501 posts
  • 154 thanks
70
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" Albert Einstein

Posted 30 October 2014 - 10:35 PM

For me this part of the scheme is very much like math "Show your Work". I like to show graphs wherever possible because visual aids are easy on the eyes.

 

Purely preference, I made my CCP validations in paragraph format & my PRP validation in a chart form.

 

Here's an example of the chart:

Attached File  Validation Table.png   394.16KB   21 downloads

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:

#5 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,636 posts
  • 3314 thanks
352
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 31 October 2014 - 12:34 AM

Dear RG3,

 

Thanks for the illustrative table. Good idea.

 

I have a couple of queries.

I don’t understand yr interpretation of validation for a metal detector

IMEX a metal detector is customarily “validated” using  a specific test procedure / specific certified test piece(s)  and the result is simply either pass or fail for that particular scenario. Validation of the MD  is thus unrelated to any  frequencies of correct or incorrect rejection during further  use of the same tests within routine use.

It is true that the MD could be (somehow) validated based on statistical data such as sensitivity / specificity when in use but AFAIK, nobody uses this approach in the food area.

 

Regarding yr attachment (and the Pest Control previously posted), assuming that the tabulated data refer to routine output, i would personally title the columns/procedures as verification rather than validation. For example, the word “verifies” is repeatedly (and correctly IMO)  used in some of  the text.

It is possible that this interpretation of “validation”  is made solely so as to concur with SQF’s well-known Va/Ve peculiarities,  in which case no need for further explanation.

 

Rgds / Charles.C


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#6 RG3

RG3

    Grade - PIFSQN

  • IFSQN Principal
  • 501 posts
  • 154 thanks
70
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" Albert Einstein

Posted 31 October 2014 - 05:48 PM

Trust me Charles I know exactly what you're saying

 

 

 

IMEX a metal detector is customarily “validated” using  a specific test procedure / specific certified test piece(s)  and the result is simply either pass or fail for that particular scenario. Validation of the MD  is thus unrelated to any  frequencies of correct or incorrect rejection during further  use of the same tests within routine use.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

 

Maybe its an overzealous US thing? I have had several auditors ask for this type of validation.


  • 0

#7 CMHeywood

CMHeywood

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 318 posts
  • 79 thanks
15
Good

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Neenah, Wisconsin

Posted 05 November 2014 - 09:25 PM

SQF Terms:  Monitor = the person doing the testing, checking, etc.

                      Verify = another person who confirms that the testing is being done per procedure and frequency.

                      Validate = management using trend analysis to assure the procedure is controlling the proper item or process.

 

CCP:  Monitor - operator records temperature and time for pasteurization.

           Verify - supervisor reviews records and signs off on the review.

            Validate - management sees chart that shows the last 6 months or more, no pasteurized milk has had an unacceptable high level of bacteria.

 

PRP:  Monitor - 3rd party calibrates the QA Lab equipment.

           Verify - QA Manager reviews that calibration is done on schedule.  Audits show nothing is part due for calibration.

           Validate - Upper management reviews trend analysis showing nothing out of spec for what QA measured to be in spec due to uncalibrated equipment.

 

I work at a packaging plant that does not have CCP's.  We do floor audits to make sure the procedures are being done (monitoring).  We do document audits to confirm that records are being reviewed (verified).  We do audits of meeting minutes to check that management is looking at trends - good or bad, and taking any necessary action (validation).


  • 0

Thanked by 1 Member:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users