3 replies to this topic

[matthewcc]

Hello all, I have a question that I don't think I have ever seen before.  We have a cleaning and sorting process (inspection) where we examine raw botanical materials (whole, c/s, etc.) for foreign matter so that we can remove the foreign matter.  In theory, this could include an allergen such as a peanut or a hazardous physical object such as glass. 

 

As part of our validation that I am updating for this process, what sort of visual acuity test would you recommend for workers (operators) for the cleaning and sorting line?  We received the green light from our human resources to proceed with this ("Great idea!"), with the intention that if someone "fails" the test, they should get moved to an area of operations that is not so heavily reliant on their ability to perceive small objects that could be similar in shape and color to the target material.  What experience do you have with a visual/eyesight acuity test of this sort, and what would you recommend? 

 

I realize that there are traditional eyesight tests that people take such as in a doctor's office; however, it would seem beneficial to make a test closer to what people would be working with under actual working conditions, e.g., with a "test sample" of a botanical that contains some foreign material, but that might not be as scientifically controlled.

 

We are certified as SQF and NSF GMP and are under dietary supplement regulations in the United States.

 

Thank you,

Matthew

[kfromNE]

I would word/do it differently. 

 

Test the employees and say you are trying to put employees in positions that match their skill set which in this position - attention to detail. 

 

If a person fails, I would look at if they lacked experience or the right tools to do the job first before moving them to a different position. 

 

I know your HR approved it but you have to watch the wording.  

[nwilson]

Could you take photos of the material being inspected with and without the foreign material and use this as a general training?  Thinking side by side comparison, can you spot the difference?  Using real examples could foster a better outcome and setting folks up for success as they would be trained on your process and know exactly what to look for.  Then on the job training shadowing other staff to make sure the employee is fully trained and well rounded.  

 

I agree with @kfromNE that you should word this differently.  I wouldn't say someone "failed" more that they didn't meet the standard or general requirements.  Certain verbiage could negatively impact an employee.  

Edited by nwilson, 05 December 2024 - 04:58 PM.

[G M]

I like the idea of showing real examples with some "close up" perspective images and a description to make it clear in the training phase, then follow that up with wider angle images that represent what a person is going to see from the normal perspective as a skills/test phase. 

 

If you have the right kind of IT or software support you could make the testing reaction timed as well, which could be beneficial if the material is going by on a conveyor and people need to not only recognize the problem but react swiftly.  Basically a rudimentary 'game' where you score well by finding the FM quickly.