Using Sign-Off Sheets as Training Records

K

Karen-Dawn

Hi All,

First off I would like to say happy Independence Day as I know most are out of the office celebrating today as we here in Canada were Friday... :beerdive:

But seriously, I was hit with a training lulu during our registration audit last week. Our system is integrated 3-ways (quality, environmental and safety) our registration is only 2-way (quality and environmental). Therefore the statement made by our registrar was only a statement and not a nonconformance because it is mainly directed at safety.

In reviewing training records it was identified that not all reading/sign-off records are completed in a timely manner. Because many of our documents also contain safety requirements it was said that if an injury occurred the training record could be used against us instead of for us in a court of law...

Eventually all records do get completed but with many employees on 4X4 rotations to cover 24/7 production it can take weeks for the trainer to track down all signatures and for the most part operators are aware of changes they just haven't signed-off.

Anyone else ever had to deal with the safety implecations of reading/sign-off and how have you overcome it? Is there a better way?

Thanks,

Karen-Dawn
 
D

Denis

We had a very similar issue, this was my approach.

There has to be a firm committment to training and training records. If a procedure / document needs review and training it stays in draft form until the training is given. The document cannot be implemented without prior training and documented evidence that training has been conducted.

There is also a matrix of training requirements for an individual role, which is seen as being mandatory to meeting training requirements. Some of the training requirements are seen as core to the role and need to be addressed and subsequently assessed for competency.

Hope this helps, like most things, it comes down to management committment and resources.
 

RoxaneB

Change Agent and Data Storyteller
Super Moderator
We've had some similar worries and this has been our approach...especially 24/7 operations and rotating 12 hour shifts...

The person making the change indicates the necessary revision in an easy-to-understand slide show. The supervisor is responsible, however, for communicating the change to his team. Training records are signed-off.

At a normal pace, this would take us 1 month to get approximately 80%-85% of people trained (taking into account vacations, sickness, etc.). The remaining people are hunted down and sho...ummm....trained.

Should we require a faster pace, it's doable to complete in under 2 weeks.
 
K

Karen-Dawn

Thanks,

They sound like some pretty sound systems. But do you both keep the employee signatures for reading the documents or do you rely on the databases? Our registrar made it sound like it was keeping the signatures (or lack of) that could pose legal implecations if a safety event occurred. I am still not sure what he expects us to do about it but management is now very nervous and wanting the system simplified...

Unless we hold team meetings or training sessions for every little process change, I don't see a way around it. I'm so confused.

Karen-Dawn
 

RoxaneB

Change Agent and Data Storyteller
Super Moderator
Karen-Dawn said:
Thanks,

They sound like some pretty sound systems. But do you both keep the employee signatures for reading the documents or do you rely on the databases? Our registrar made it sound like it was keeping the signatures (or lack of) that could pose legal implecations if a safety event occurred. I am still not sure what he expects us to do about it but management is now very nervous and wanting the system simplified...

Unless we hold team meetings or training sessions for every little process change, I don't see a way around it. I'm so confused.

Karen-Dawn

Our document control system allows for electronic signature to demonstrate that training has occurred (but it only works for those people that have email which not all of our people have).

For those records with a hard signature, we update our electronic database AND maintain a scanned copy of the training record in their file.

For group training, a scanned copy with the individual's signature is maintained in their training file, too.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
Certainly timely training and sign off is linked between systems, where training is the attachment point. An example of this is the orientation and yearly Right To Know (MSDS) training that actually is madated by law.

As an inexpensive computerless method I favor the readily accessible matrix, which employees can initial, to rosters which do not reflect when training was due and who has not received it yet.
 

Caster

An Early Cover
Trusted Information Resource
Some ideas we try

Karen-Dawn said:
it can take weeks for the trainer to track down all signatures and for the most part operators are aware of changes they just haven't signed-off.

Anyone else ever had to deal with the safety implecations of reading/sign-off and how have you overcome it? Is there a better way?

Karen-Dawn

Same problem everywhere I expect.

Do you have pre-shift meetings? We used to have them and the supervisors verbally communicated the change and got people to sign. Very quick. (Push system).

Do you have an intranet? Our top page shows the most current changes (Pull system).

You could also try a broadcast e-mail (likely to be ignored)

We have two excellent dedicated people who mercilessly track down and hound those supervisors who have untrained people. (High cost, high conflict approach)

I would say that our system meets the letter of the law, but is not effective.

We have the sign offs but little learning is happening. Sadly, the system values a sign off over understanding.

You train a dog, but you should educate a human.

Had a case this week where a person was "signed off" on a method, but did not understand the task. A very costly mistake was made.

I have no ideas how to develop and promote real understanding and committment to do a job correctly. I suspect this behaviour is linked directly to what the leader does "not says" every day.

Good luck - the fact that you are even trying puts you in the top 1% of companies as hard as that is to imagine.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
Excellent points, Caster.

The sign-off process for getting updates or changes in procedures/other important matters may not be enough. The more valuable the changes are, the more effort must be placed to ensure the changes are lodged inside people's heads and they do as directed.

Sometimes written changes don't stick because they are hard to understand. Are they written in a way that is easy for a mid-level reader to comprehend? Are all the people's reading levels high enough for the material they are given? If not, some people may be avoiding the updates, not just neglecting them.

If, as Caster says the sign offs occur but an expensive mistake was made because the worker didn't understand the change, one might look at both the training program and its stakeholders. There are potential problems with training delivery and it is possible the person doesn't want to perform. I have a paper in The Reading Room on this subject. The paper also covers some problems with people wanting to do the "right" thing.

Lastly, if it is so very difficult to chase people down for updates, I wonder if the organization (top management, middle managers and supervisors) fully supports the training effort, or just says "Get to your machine and get started" so as to get the numbers rolling. What management wants, management gets. If you can show the problem with personnel dedication to this function is costing the organization money in, for example, mistakes, you might press for better focus on training--more time, hands-on verification of learning, etc.
 
Top Bottom