Revision History Page on Procedures Back/Front of Doc

[carmelwish]

Is it acceptable to have revision history pages at the back of a procedure instead of the front?

Should you have a list of approvers or distribution list on each procedure?

If you have an automated document control software system, do you need the list of approvers and/or distribution list?

 

[CarolX]

Is it acceptable to have revision history pages at the back of a procedure instead of the front?

Should you have a list of approvers or distribution list on each procedure?

If you have an automated document control software system, do you need the list of approvers and/or distribution list?

Hi carmelwish and welcome to the Cove!

I am going to answer your questions based strictly on an QMS set-up to comply with ISO9001 as I don't know what the requirements are for "specialty" fields.

1st off, understand that I abhore revision history included on the procedure. I think that is a waste of space and clutters the document. ISO does not require any specific formating of procedures, but you must have a system for assuring the latest revision is available for use. I will say the same about a distribution list being included in the procedure. Where I work, we do keep a seperate "matrix" of who needs to be trained on procedures, and re-trained when they are revised.

Hope this helps a bit!

 

[C Emmons]

I placed a revison history section at the each of each procedure. I have a prepared by and approved by section in the footers of the word documents. They are then placed on our company intranet.

 

[ScottK]

Rev history is the last section in my documents.

 

[Crusader]

I keep a red-lined, reviewed and approved hardcopy in my files. Then I remove all that stuff from the final revision of the procedure. It always confuses everyone (including the registrar) if I leave that history in the doc.

 

[Randy]

You can do what you want, how you want and when you want as long as you can show effective control.

 

[SteelMaiden]

1st off, understand that I abhore revision history included on the procedure. I think that is a waste of space and clutters the document. ISO does not require any specific formating of procedures, but you must have a system for assuring the latest revision is available for use. I will say the same about a distribution list being included in the procedure. Where I work, we do keep a seperate "matrix" of who needs to be trained on procedures, and re-trained when they are revised.

Hope this helps a bit!

absolutely!

You can do what you want, how you want and when you want as long as you can show effective control.

Please, do what works best for your organization. We have a database that contains the revision history. Nothing on the procedure at all.

 

[Pazuzu - 2009]

We have always kept a hardcopy history with revision records, regardless of the level of the document, retained for two years. At the recent audit it was advised (O for I) that any high level documents have a chart included in them indicating what and when the changes were made. This way should somebody review it they can immediately be drawn to the change rather than review the entire document (and potentially miss the change). Makes sense...but honestly how often are the high level documents being revised (or read for that matter)?

Personally I agree...leave that stuff out of the document. It should contain what is needed...not what WAS needed. Just make sure it's controlled and you can verify any changes as Randy stated.

 

[carmelwish]

Thanks for your help!

 

[gpainter]

On the ones I set up I put it on the front in a small section at the top. current issue date and previous issue date. I agree with Rany also, as long as you can show that the current revision is on the floor, it has been approved and the applicable persons are trained, everything should be good.