Ditto Marks in Records
Good Day everyone,
I am trying to find an alternative to using ditto marks when completing records. Is there any thing under any clause or standard that suggests an alternative to the (" ") ditto marks used on records to show continuation of information?
Hi S. Mohammed, welcome to our forum! I've personally never heard of any kind of recommendations in standards or GFSI schemes regarding ditto marks.
It's simply best practice not to use them but also, given that all of the documents we produce MAY be subpoenaed, they are legally binding. Ditto marks provide no actual values therefore zero information-------one has to ASSUME that they mean the same as the information above and many government regulators will not accept them
Better idea, if you find that a lot of your paperwork is repetitive is to examine what you NEED to write down and remove or auto input everything else
Lets say you only have 3 vendors (as an example) when not put all 3 on the record, and employees need to just circle the write one............
Or employees need to write Yes or No, input both, they just circle the correct abser
This answer isn't intentionally facetious, but the only acceptable alternative would be to record the process data as actual values. I have heard auditors remark that using ditto marks gives the appearance that operators haven't actually carried out a documented check - so in effect dittos are intended to mean 'same value as last recorded check' but are interpreted as 'probably didn't actually perform the check'.
On an individual level, I sympathise with operators who have to record the same information every 15 minutes, but from the systematic/compliance perspective I don't really disagree with the auditor's remarks.
I would advise against ditto marks.
Hi S. Mohammed, welcome to our forum! I've personally never heard of any kind of recommendations in standards or GFSI schemes regarding ditto marks.
Ditto!
All my stuff is written so it just needs initialed, unless something is wrong/being written up. If you're ditto marking it that often, just type it up and make it a sign off.
I am personally against ditto marks but there is one thing I have seen being used and I don't have a problem with it; using a long continuous arrow instead of ditto marks to indicate it's a same information. Example:
Task Time completed Initials
Turn on the valve 1 7:59 am SD
Turn on the valve 2 7:59 am SD
Turn on the valve 3 7:59 am SD
Turn on the valve 4 7:59 am SD
Turn on the valve 5 7:59 am SD
Turn on the valve 6 7:59 am SD
Turn on the valve 7 7:59 am SD
Task Time completed Initials
Turn on the valve 1 7:59 am SD
Turn on the valve 2
Turn on the valve 3
Turn on the valve 4
Turn on the valve 5
Turn on the valve 6
Turn on the valve 7
Turn on the valve 8 7:59 am SD
Instead of filling the table with 7:59 am in all rows ,or same initials in all rows, the first and last row was filled out manually and a continuous arrow (---------------->)connected the first and last row. 7:59 am ---------------> 7:59 am and SD---------------> SD.
PS: Sorry, could not attach the picture or make an arrow here.
I would be careful what kind of documents I would allow to use these arrows though.
To add on to what Samjhand wrote above, I agree that you can draw a line; however, in my experience it is always accompanied by the initials and date of who is filling in the fields. So you draw the line from rows A-G then insert the initials and date (spanning rows H-I) and then continue the line indicating same information from rows J-M. And I completely agree with the above comment regarding evaluating the forms for redundancy and eliminating non-essential info or creating fields which provide the data and require circling, etc. Hope this is not too confusing!
Our Good Documentation Practices procedures prohibit the use of ditto marks. Instead, we use a single line through the empty fields, not arrows. I think the feeling is that arrows imply continuation, when you are really going from one cell to another, and no further.
We don't use ditto marks, but do use check marks and X.
We have a legend on every page that states what the √ or X means.
So far, auditors are okay with that.