6 replies to this topic

[rellie]

Hi.

 

I am writing a procedure for GMP site inspections and the ratings that I have been told to use are Full compliance, Partial compliance & Non-Conformance.

 

Would anyone have some definitions I could use for the procedure, that would also help with consistency between the audit team when completing the inspections?

 

Thanks

[rvazquez]

HI,

 

When we are looking for GMP's non-conformance during an audit I always tell my team to have in mind that we are looking for anything that can be a treat to food safety.  If you see that it could become a food safety tread it will be a minor (partial compliance) and if you see that is a food treat it will be a non- conformance.

 

Hope it helps

[Mark H]

rellie,

 

Try this for simplicity. It has worked for me in past GMP/GDP audits and passed muster in our 1st SQF certification audit.

 

Full Compliance = Good on.

 

Partial Compliance = Deficiency may cause a food adulteration issue.

 

Non Comformance = Deficiency will cause a food adulteration issue.

 

 

Not having complete thermometer calibration logs is a Partial.

 

Having birds flying overhead in the buiiding means you better update your resume. Serious point deduction in GMP, automatic fail in SQF audit

[Charles.C]

Hi.

 

I am writing a procedure for GMP site inspections and the ratings that I have been told to use are Full compliance, Partial compliance & Non-Conformance.

 

Would anyone have some definitions I could use for the procedure, that would also help with consistency between the audit team when completing the inspections?

 

Thanks

 

Dear rellie,

 

Told by Whom ? With respect to what auditable Standard ?

 

I anticipate these terminologies will have an Australian/Standard Interpretation. If otherwise they are totally arbitrary. You might as well consult a kookaburra.

 

Rgds / Charles.C

 

PS - I can remember seeing these ratings used for at least one specific standard AIB?, NSF ?

[RG3]

Partial compliance is something you can most likely handle on a one to one basis and not involve management because you don't see it as a routine, more like an isolated issue, and is not a food safety issue. If it's a blatant disregard for the code it would be a non-conformance and/or a direct food safety issue. 

 

Full compliance: Wearing the hairnet correctly over the ears covering all head hair.

Partial compliance: Wearing the hairnet like a beret exposing hair.

Non-Conformance: Not wearing a hairnet at all.

 

Full compliance: Floor is dry.

Partial compliance: Floor is wet with possible standing water.

Non-Conformance: Production is using high pressure water hoses to clean the floor while production is working.

[HACCP Mentor]

I try an stay away from 'partial' compliance as it really ends up being subjective between auditors. It is either pass or fail, compliance or non-compliance, yes or no, acceptable or not acceptable.  You can then better define the expectation for each of the elements that you are auditing.  I also have found that as an auditor, when the word 'partial' is used, limited action is taken to rectify the issue identified. 

[CMHeywood]

You need to review the requirements of the standard you are using to determine compliance.

 

My opinion:  Full compliance - you meet all the requirements in all locations where the requirement applies (all hazards are controlled everywhere)  Partial compliance - you are missing some compliance to requirements or you don't have consistent compliance in all locations or areas (some hazards are not well controlled).  Noncompliance - you have no or very little compliance indicating you no real control over the hazards.