A Risk-based Approach to GMP Training:
One Size Does Not Fit All
David C. Markovitz
President and Founder - GMP Training Systems, Inc.
“Training in current good manufacturing practice shall be conducted by
qualified individuals on a continuing basis and with sufficient frequency to
assure that employees remain familiar with cGMP requirements applicable to
them.” This is the current wording of 21 CFR Part 211 Subpart B, Section
211.25 (Personnel Qualifications).
How is your organization interpreting and applying this section of the
regulation? Many companies interpret this to mean something like: “We
conduct annual GMP training for our production employees.” Or: “We conduct
annual GMP training for all of our employees.”
Is this acceptable? Consider the questions in the table below and answer YES
or NO.
| |
Yes |
No |
| Will an annual dose of GMP training for some of your employees be acceptable
to FDA? |
|
|
| Will an annual dose of GMP training for all of your employees be acceptable
to FDA? |
|
|
| Does 'all employees' include any temporary employees you may utilize?
|
|
|
| Does 'all employees' include any consultants or contractors you may utilize?
|
|
|
| Does 'all employees' include custodial staff, especially if your custodial
operations are outsourced? |
|
|
| Does 'all employees' include members of the security force, especially if the
security service is outsourced? |
|
|
| Does 'all employees' include maintenance personnel? |
|
|
| Does 'all employees' include those working off shifts – evenings, nights, and
weekends? |
|
|
If you answered NO to any of the questions above, then the following
information will be most helpful for you.
- An annual refresher GMP course developed as a one size fits all approach may
be easy to design and administer, but it is an approach fraught with danger.
Consider the risks involved.
- Someone whose job directly deals with exposed product may not learn enough
about GMP requirements to prevent contamination, mix-ups, or errors from
occurring.
- Someone whose job is far removed from exposed product may be burdened with
learning GMP regulations that have no bearing or impact on their specific
responsibilities.
- Someone who was off the job due to disability, maternity leave, jury duty,
or even vacation may miss the training session.
- Contract employees may miss the training altogether if they are not on the
official company roster.
- Temporary employees may get too little training to ensure the safety of your
products.
These days we often see and hear the term, GXP. The acronym GXP refers to
GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice), GCP (Good Clinical Practice), and GLP
(Good Laboratory Practice) collectively. This article will help you develop
a GXP training approach that meets the regulatory requirements and addresses
this from a risk-based perspective. Deciding who requires what training is
critical to getting started. Who should develop and conduct the training is
another key component of a successful GXP training process.
Who should develop and conduct the training?
The regulation states that “Training in current good manufacturing practice
shall be conducted by qualified individuals.” What are the qualifications of
a GMP trainer? A qualified trainer is certainly someone who has done more
than read through the regulations. It is certainly someone who has done more
than worked in the operation for a long time.
It’s highly suggested that your company start by listing the qualifications
required to teach GMP in the organization. Perhaps even develop a job
description for a GMP trainer. Depending upon the size of your company, this
does not have to be a full-time position. It can be duties associated with
another job title. The important thing here is to document the
qualifications.
Some suggestions for qualifications include:
- Experience working in the industry – a minimum of five years is recommended.
- Extensive knowledge of the GMP regulations. This is best attained by
attendance at GMP seminars and courses offered by many industry providers.
- Knowledge and demonstrated expertise of adult learning theory and
techniques. This is best attained by attendance at courses offered by
industry providers. The American Society for Training and Development (ASTD)
can offer guidance here.
- A demonstrated aptitude for teaching and training. There are several
instruments available to assist in this determination.
- A passion for teaching. This is tough to objectively measure, but can often
be detected by the level of enthusiasm an individual shows when talking
about this endeavor.
Most successful GXP training processes utilize a combination of internal and
external resources. It’s important to have company employees teach aspects
of the regulatory requirements. It demonstrates that “We believe in these
regulations, and our policies and procedures are aligned to comply with
them.” Employees of the company can also clearly demonstrate how the company
policies and procedures address each aspect of the regulations. A sound
objective of any GXP training process should be to gain the commitment of
all employees to comply with the regulations and all company policies and
procedures. Too often, training sessions appear aimed at coercing employees
into compliance. My experience has shown that by focusing on efforts to gain
commitment among the workforce, compliance comes along naturally.
The efforts of your internal delivery of GXP training should be augmented
with the use of outside experts. It’s amazing how the credibility and status
of your internal trainers goes up after employees are exposed to training by
the outside expert. There’s something unique about hearing the facts from an
outsider, especially if it’s information that you’ve heard from your
internal trainer. It’s a way to validate the knowledge and credibility of
your internal training force. An outside expert can also lead your people in
discussions regarding leading issues within FDA, something internal people
may not have the time or resources to do. An outside expert also comes free
of any “organizational baggage” which may negatively impact the learning
process.
Choosing an outside expert to help with your GXP training process should
be carefully considered. Here are some questions to help you select the right
expert.
- Do they have the technical knowledge?
- Have they worked in industry?
- Do they have hands-on experience in being on the receiving end of an FDA
inspection or customer audit?
- How well can they connect with and relate to your employees?
- Do they have good presentation skills? (or are they a lecturer? Lecturing is
a surefire method for a disastrous GXP training event – face it, regulatory
training is not the most exciting topic, but it DOES NOT have to be boring.)
- Do they know how to design and deliver an interactive training session?
- Are they willing to coach and mentor your internal training people?
- Are they willing to work with you to customize the training?
- Are they willing to do the research required to ensure that the training
they develop and conduct reinforces your internal themes and messages?
An outside expert in GXP training should be considered as a partner in your
GXP training process. Your internal and external GXP training team can
ensure that you have a state-of-the-art training process, and that your
employees are getting the right dose of training when they need it.
Who gets the training and how much should they get?
The regulation states that “Each person engaged in the manufacture,
processing, packing, or holding of a drug product shall have education,
training, and experience, or any combination thereof, to enable that person
to perform the assigned functions. Training shall be in the particular
operations that the employee performs and in current good manufacturing
practice as they relate to the employee’s functions.” (21CFR Part 211
Subpart b, Section 211.25)
So the short answer is EVERYBODY IN THE COMPANY needs GXP training. Everyone
working for the company is engaged in the manufacture, processing, packing,
or holding or a drug product in some fashion. A clerk in Accounts Payable
could impact the relationship with a supplier of a critical raw material. An
Information Systems analyst could impact the operation of critical software
used in the manufacturing process. A sales person could make promises to a
customer that could impact the production schedule. A service technician may
discover valuable data in the field that could lead to product improvements.
A security officer may leave a door ajar that could impact the safety and
efficacy of a batch of product. We could write a scenario for every job in
your organization and how that job is ENGAGED in the manufacture,
processing, packing, or holding or a drug product.
Now the question is What level of risk does this job have on the quality of
our products?
It’s important to identify the level of risk for each job title in your
company. Keep it simple by identifying High, Medium, and Low risk for
determining the level of GXP training required. Start by asking the
following questions.
- To what extent does this job impact the safety and efficacy of our products?
- What is the probability of someone in this position contaminating our
product? (An accounting clerk working in a building one hundred miles from
the manufacturing site has no chance of contaminating a product. A shipping
clerk who handles finished packages before they are shipped has some chance,
while an operator working in the filling room has a high chance of
contaminating a product.)
- What is the impact on quality of a mix-up by someone in that position?
- What is the impact on quality of an error by someone in that position?
The table below demonstrates how one can graphically display and organize
these into High, Medium, and Low risk situations. This table is presented
for demonstration purposes only – your actual situation will determine the
risk level for each job. (Table 1 Risk-based Prioritization by Function)
| |
HIGH |
MEDIUM |
LOW |
| Materials Manager |
X |
|
|
| Sterile Fill Room Operator |
X |
|
|
| Accounts Payable Clerk |
|
|
X |
| Production Supervisor |
X |
|
|
| Information Systems Analyst |
|
X |
|
| Security Officer |
|
X |
|
| Human Resources Benefits Administrator |
|
|
X |
| Quality Control Analyst |
X |
|
|
| Receiving Clerk |
X |
|
|
| Shipping Clerk |
X |
|
|
| Director of Information Systems |
X |
|
|
| Scheduler |
|
X |
|
| Compounder |
X |
|
|
| Production Manager |
X |
|
|
| Payroll Clerk |
|
|
X |
| Cafeteria Cook |
|
|
X |
Table 1 Risk-based Prioritization by Function
Completing this table shouldn’t take long. It’s best done by an ad-hoc team
of subject matter experts (internal people with knowledge about these
positions). To make the task simpler, create a table for each department.
For instance, a table for Materials Management could be created. In this
table you might have positions such as Scheduler, Receiving Clerk, Shipping
Clerk, Material Handlers, Purchasing Manager, Purchasing Clerk, and others.
Determining level of risk also depends on their proximity to products being
processed. The Purchasing people may be in a separate building and never
actually enter the building where products are manufactured or stored. A
Receiving or Shipping Clerk may have to walk through a packaging area in
order to get to their work areas. Knowing policies and procedures for the
packaging areas would become an important part of their training, where it
would not be for the Purchasing people.
The objective is to design “the right dose” of training for each position.
Several positions can be combined based upon their level of risk and their
general job responsibilities. Starting with the premise that every employee
receives a certain dose of GXP training as part of their new employee
orientation, we can use the tables to determine what follow-up training is
required and how frequently to conduct that training.
Of course, those positions with higher risk levels should be accorded more
in-depth training and more frequent training. Guarding against complacency,
or “rustiness on the job,” is the main reason the regulation stipulates that
“Training in current good manufacturing practice shall be conducted on a
continuing basis and with sufficient frequency to assure that employees
remain familiar with cGMP requirements applicable to them.”
This risk-based approach to training is consistent with FDA’s assessment of
training programs during an FDA inspection. You’ll find this approach
effective in explaining your GMP training process to the FDA inspectors,
thus reducing stress during the inspection process.
How frequent should we conduct GXP training?
While the regulations require “sufficient frequency,” the answer depends
upon the firm determining and justifying what indeed is sufficient for their
situation. It depends on the risk factor. It only stands to reason that
those positions with a higher level of risk should get training more
frequently. Keeping people fresh is paramount if the level of criticality is
high. Commercial airline pilots have to be re-certified in their jobs every
six months. Are only the bad pilots called in for re-certification? Of
course not. All pilots are required to pass the re-certification process.
The employees of the airlines who check us in at the gate or handle our
baggage have a different dose of training and re-training for their
positions. Sending someone’s bags to the wrong location, although irritating
to us passengers, does not carry the same risk level to the passengers as a
pilot who reacts too slowly or overreacts when caught in a wind shear
situation.
Sufficient frequency of GXP training for someone working inside a sterile
filling area, a position with a high-risk level, might be interpreted as
once each month. This can be a formal GMP training session with an
instructor and handouts or workbooks. Another month it may be a portion of a
department meeting dedicated to discussing GMP issues, with a Supervisor
presiding. It may be specific GMP lessons embedded into a game show format
during a particular month. It may be a guest speaker from a different
department. It may be a formal class with an outside expert. It may be
something slightly different each month. As long as it’s planned as part of
an overall training process, the delivery method may vary. In fact, it
should vary not only to keep it interesting, but to appeal to the different
learning styles among those attending the training.
Consider someone who may work in Human Resources as a Benefits Administrator
and their risk level is low. Perhaps their office is in a separate building
and they have no authorization to enter any building where product is either
manufactured or stored. What is sufficient frequency of GXP training for
this person? The general GXP training provided in the new employee
orientation process may be sufficient for this position, unless there are
changes to the regulations or the company’s policies and procedures. An
annual workshop on GXP may be desirable to ensure that these folks continue
their vigilance of working in the health care industry. This training should
focus on how their specific responsibilities impact and affect the
commitment to GXP throughout the company. Using the example of Benefits
Administrator, consider the impact on employee morale of changes to employee
benefits. Poor morale often increases the probability of mix-ups and errors
throughout the work force.
Document the training
Make sure to document each training session. There are several commercially
available training documentation software packages available. Make sure you
use one that can provide the appropriate reports. The biggest benefit of
preparing reports is in keeping track of who has received what training.
This can be quite a task with peoples’ vacation schedules, jury duty
absences, and other absences due to illness, family leave, disability, and
other reasons people miss work. Scheduling people to attend the make-up
sessions is easier with the proper reporting structure in place.
This documentation also provides proof to FDA that you have a training
process in place that is working. Your risk assessment training tables are
also useful to show to FDA during an inspection as further proof that you
have a well-designed GXP training process that uses the risk-based approach.
Prove the Training is Effective
Conducting training should be focused on specific aims. Determining whether
the training actually is effective is often seen as elusive and difficult to
assess. It’s suggested here that you establish key metrics or performance
measures that have a real impact on your business. Some examples of key
metrics can be the number of non-conformances in production areas, number of
manufacturing deviations, number of laboratory out-of-specification results
(OOS) and number of laboratory out-of-trend results (OOT), number of
consumer complaints, as well as other measures of effectiveness. Effective
training should have the impact of improving your performance metrics.
Although there are many factors that influence performance, effective
training is one of the most critical factors.
Training as a Process
Viewing your GXP training activities as a process, and not just a series of
events, can help you ensure an ongoing commitment throughout the
organization. Determining different levels or “doses” of training geared to
specific groups is the best course of action. One size does not fit all.
Specific targeted training is more effective over the long term. Basic
introductory courses addressing all three risk levels should be part of
someone’s training plan when they join the company. They then can enter the
process of on-going GXP training with their colleagues. How much training
they receive and how frequently they receive it depends on many factors.
Using the risk-based approach is a simple and easy-to-implement method to
design and manage this process.
References
- Current Good Manufacturing Practice for the Manufacture, Processing,
Packing, or Holding of a Drug Product 21 CFR Parts 210 and 211 Subpart B
Organization and Personnel 211.25 - Personnel qualifications
- Pharmaceutical cGMPs for the 21st Century: A Risk-based Approach, FDA
August 21, 2003
David Markovitz is the Founder and President
of GMP Training Systems, Inc. and the Institute for Effective Innovation, a
company created to help people in organizations become self sufficient with
innovation by equipping them with time tested tools, the best resources, and
expert coaching.
David can be reached at 714-289-1233 or
David@GMPTrainingSystems.com
 |