Recording training of staff in new/revised procedures

[David Mullins]

The scenario is a hotel/pub/inn (non-residential). The pub decides to introduce a quality system because they have a high turnover of staff, and even the staff that have been there a while don't know all that they should, and all do things differently.
The pub DOES NOT want to certify their system.

The problem:
Given the turnover of staff and ongoing revision of procedures, how do they record training of staff in new/revised procedures?

Put another way:
They have a matrix, that they keep up to date, which shows who should be competent in which procedures. If a procedure is revised what is an effective, time efficient means to get staff to sign-off that they have familiarised themselves with the revisions? (They want a hard copy of this evidence, but not a truck load of meaningless papers)

Any thoughts or sample forms?

------------------

[Andy Bassett]

Im not sure there is an easy way out of this, if there is someone let us know. Isimply have a 'Attendance List' for each procedure and ask new personnel to sign after training.

On a loosely connected point, i have been very dissatisified with the quality of training for new employees in one particular company. After a review we have decided to change it, after deciding what areas are of interest to new employees, the employee will be asked to visit the relevant area, disucss the procedure and make notes on it.

This has several advantages
A. The training is done by the process owners themselves.
B. All parties have to get use to finding the documentation.
C. The Process owners will have more ownership and understanding of their own processes.
D. The trainees are asked to present a file at the end of training which contains the marked copies of the procedures (Ie a record of training).

Dont know if that helps.

Regards



------------------
Andy B

[David Mullins]

What I am currently considering is providing a copy of updated/revised procedures to relevant employees, with a cover sheet which requires them to read the procedure, mark down if they read and understood the changes, and sign against their name.

I am looking for something less cumbersome, namely this method creates a lot of files, and takes some time to circulate amongst employees, if it doesn't get lost along the way.

If anybody has a better option, my band width is open!

------------------

[Andy Bassett]

Hello David

Do you have owners of the processes. If yes get THEM to do the training, it will increase the awarenes of procedures alround.

Regards

------------------
Andy B

We are currently using hard copies for procedures and the "system" is that when new or revised procedures are issued, the manager/team leader for that area is responsible for developing a plan of implementation. i.e. identifies who needs to be briefed / re-trained against procedure, who will conduct the briefing/training and a timescale for completion.
This plan is returned with the document receipt note and therefore implementation / effectiveness of the training/briefing can be followed up via internal audit.

Dave,
Why not have one designated office/place where procedure changes are signed off and a copy of the latest version is available. Keep a log book there. When a procedure changes, write down, in the book, a list of people who need to see the change, along with a tick box for "I've read and understood it" and another for "I've read it but need some help". Review the book periodically, chase up those who haven't ticked either box and remind the process owner to help those who need it, who can then tick a further box saying "I'm OK with this now".


Cheers

Brian

[David Mullins]

In my current job I'm surrounded by PHD holders. I waved it under the nose of a few, which created responses like "a causation test model against normals for baseline contrast". I'd better ask the psych group next!

------------------

[David Mullins]

Excuse my previous response, it slipped into the wrong part of the forum!!!!!!

Thanks for the feedback.

What I've currently proposed it essentially what Brian suggested, but with a coversheet instead of a log.

Don's suggestion is an interesting one, although I'm wondering if it makes the paper chase even longer, plus my example is is not an ISO 9001 compliant system, as they don't have audits (they prefer a regular inspection by the duty manager). It certainly made me think about a possible improvement - instead of the standard "changes in this issue" section I put on the base of the first page of revised procedures, I might increase it to something along the lines of "what's out & what's in". This might provide a much clearer picture for people so that they can effect the changes in their work practices without trying to re-assess the changed paragraphs to determine how/if they are impacted.

------------------