8 replies to this topic

[aps]

Hi all,

I am after some opinions of others regarding trianing. I am not totally sure if i am going overboard with training as currently have 40+ detailed procedures and i am pulling my hair out trying to get all associates to sign against. I understand and realise CCP training is to be signed for but in your opinion do i need all other procedures to follow suite or do i put this in the areas for ref

Look forward to feedback

[Charles.C]

Dear a stoker,

Can you be a little more specific ?, eg give an example

Rgds / Charles.C

[Jean]

Hi all,

I am after some opinions of others regarding trianing. I am not totally sure if i am going overboard with training as currently have 40+ detailed procedures and i am pulling my hair out trying to get all associates to sign against. I understand and realise CCP training is to be signed for but in your opinion do i need all other procedures to follow suite or do i put this in the areas for ref

Look forward to feedback

Dear a stoker,



Not sure if I have understood your query, but presume that you are asking if all the procedures (SOP’s) related to your process needs to be signed by your staff. In a simple way, file all training records for the training you have conducted with respect to the CCP’s or SOP’s and have a copy of the procedures / CCP’s pasted or filed in the respective areas.



If I have got you wrong, please excuse and as Charles mentioned you explain more specifically.

[cazyncymru]

Hi all,

I am after some opinions of others regarding trianing. I am not totally sure if i am going overboard with training as currently have 40+ detailed procedures and i am pulling my hair out trying to get all associates to sign against. I understand and realise CCP training is to be signed for but in your opinion do i need all other procedures to follow suite or do i put this in the areas for ref

Look forward to feedback

I hold a "master file" of all procedures.
at the back of each procedure i have a training form which each individual signs when they are trained in that procedure.

our HR department then, on a regular basis, reviews these training sign offs and transfers the information onto the individuals training matrix.

c x

[Charles.C]

Dear Caz,

HR = Hygiene Regulation ??? Anyway I presume this is something within the overall QA function.

So you actually have funds for a department and people to maintain individual training matrices. Wow (particularly if similar numbers to poster) ! Good company.

I am wondering if you hv answered the original question by, err, default

Rgds / Charles.C

added - after reading some parallel posts, seems both Caz and a.stoker are fortunate enough to hv a small army of backup infantry. O Lucky People !

[aps]

I wish i did have an army!!!!!

There is only me so having this site is a good thing as can pick everybodies brain for help and advice

Cheers

[Charles.C]

Dear a Stoker,

There is only me

Yes, I know this feeling of being overwhelmed only too well ! The general advice Caz gave is excellent but you do need "hands".

A "functional" answer may depend on yr intended standard ? Personally (for BRC) I concentrated my attention on (a) hygiene intake package (b) approx. 6-weekly, prioritised, personal hygiene related training sessions and some random picks (eg 1-2) from the main batch of quality procedures at maybe 2-3 month intervals. (gets bit more complicated as per a parallel post for things like product recall). Knowingly (very) not perfect but an attempted minimal compromise. One side - benefit is that it does offer an opportunity to coerce the "management" further when the question of "continuous improvement" looms over the audit horizon.

Rgds / Charles.C

[MKRMS]

hi a stoker,

why not issue an employee hygiene (or procedure) manual that contains all relevant procedures, hand out this document to everyone and get all employees to sign off receipt and a declaration that anyone in the company is bound to follow these procedures?
You could even produce several specific manuals for different areas if not all your procedures are relevant to every area of production.
This quick 'training' procedure could be accompanied by competency testing (find out if employees really know what the procedures entail) to document understanding of procedures. Competency could easily be tested and recorded during staff appraisal meetings or even on-line through observation (this could be done by line manager or other immediate supervisor).
Both acknowledgments and competency test results can then be kept on file for training documentation purposes.
I strongly believe in thorough training and instruction and would advocate that all employees sign off all documentation that is relevant to their work. This constitutes proactive management and helps to prove 'due dilligence' in case of something going wrong.
As to the number of written procedures: evaluate them against the risk they are used to control and their relevance for food safety and see if you can reduce the number by combining several detailed (and related) procedures into one more general procedure (e.g. have one personal hygiene policy instead of separate hand washing, protective clothing, grooming and jewellery policies). Recipes and other product-specific procedures may not need to be part of your food safety management programme.
Hope this helps.

Greetings from Eire

Matt

[GMO]

It sounds a little overboard. Does every employee really use every procedure? Could you combine some and deliver as a training session rather than sign each as a procedure?

Otherwise I'd concentrate on the basics for training; GMP & Personal Hygiene, HACCP, food hygiene / safety if doing CIEH or similar and CCPs for people monitoring them. Then I'd make sure key people knew about other procedures. Auditors mostly ask for ones of the list I've given to be honest.