When we first developed our Food Safety and HACCP functionality at the request of the Alberta Food Processors Association, we did so under the premise that most companies would be attempting to satisfy the Alberta HACCP Advantage (AHA!) protocol.  The Government of Alberta protocol only asked for two forms related to Hazard Identification and CCP Determination:

• Hazards Related to Incoming Materials (which AHA! calls "HACCP Form 5"), and
• Hazards Related to Process Steps (which AHA! calls "HACCP Form 6")

Under this standard, each of these forms contain all hazards, regardless of type (biological, chemical, physical and allergenic).  And the subsequent forms (Hazards not Controlled by Operator, etc.) are numbered from 7 onward.

Lately though, most food processors are primarily interested in satisfying the Global Food Safety Initiative standards, such as SQF and BRC.  These standards follow the international best practice of breaking down the hazards into multiple forms, based on their hazard type (not material vs. process):

• Biological Hazards Identification (which under best practice is typically called "HACCP Form 5"),
• Chemical Hazards Identification (which under best practice is typically called "HACCP Form 6"),
• Physical Hazards Identification (which under best practice is typically called "HACCP Form 7"), and
• CCP Determination (which under best practice is typically called "HACCP Form 8")

Under this model, the subsequent Forms (Hazards not Controlled by Operator, etc.) begin at Form 9 (instead of Form 7 as explained above).

So, in order to accommodate the best of both worlds, we've now reconfigured the reports so that they follow the hazard type model (Forms 5, 6, and 7), but also include the CCP Determination columns associated with Form 8.

To appease the old school method, we've separated the hazards into two different tables, under the headings "Hazards Related to Ingredients and Incoming Materials", and "Hazards Related to Process Steps". 

We include all allergenic hazards on HACCP Form 6 (Chemical) but identify the hazard type accordingly in one of the report columns.

For years we've heard from safety administrators that SafetySync's Policy Acknowledgment tool is superb in nearly all cases, but it doesn't work for all their workers.  Invariably there are a handful of employees that speak English as a second language, and are therefore unable to read or comprehend the policies (as they are written in English).  Typically this meant having to maintain a paper copy of the policies, and requiring a coworker that is fluent in both English and the new employee's language read the policy or explain it to the new hire.  This is a costly process, since it ties up another worker for the policy review portion of a worker's orientation (plus the other worker is usually a supervisor).  A new feature in SafetySync has eliminated this problem.

In the Administrator Portal, simply check the "ESL" checkbox in the Employee Details Page, then choose the employee's original language.

Now, when that employee logs into their Employee Portal, and navigates to the policy list, clicks on a policy that has been uploaded as text (translation is not possible for policies uploaded as PDF's), there will be a link at the top of the policy that says "Translate", but in their selected language).  When they click on the link, the entire policy will be translated (with the ability to toggle back to English).  As the user hovers over a particular sentence, the original text (in English) will be shown, which can help the employee interpret the meaning of the sentence, should the translation not be exact.


Naturally, since it is a translation service (powered by Google), not every sentence is translated perfectly.  Often it will make a literal translation, which can sound odd for some safety-specific terms or catch phrases.  Nonetheless, the message behind a policy will usually be communicated well enough for employees that cannot read English to understand their responsibilities and to carry out their job accordingly.

For food processors, preparing and maintaining HACCP forms for their food safety programs can be an arduous task, particularly for processors that have multiple products.  Each time a process step gets modified, or a new hazard identified, the HACCP coordinator or team must go through all the HACCP forms for each product and make the change, updating version numbers and dates as they go.

The new Food Safety component in SafetySync, developed in conjunction with the Alberta Food Processors Association, makes producing these HACCP forms a snap.  Simply create your ingredients, processes and associated hazards in the system.  Then assign the ingredients and processes to the products in the appropriate order (steps), and the HACCP forms can then be printed at the click of a button.  The image on the left is a sample screenshot of a HACCP Form 3 (Process Flow Diagram).

Forms show all the required information for common GFSI standards (BRC, SQF, etc.) such as hazard types (noted as B, C, P, or A in the example on the left).

Changes to any individual process, hazard, etc., will automatically cascade to all HACCP forms, and for all products in which those processes, hazards, etc. apply.

Whenever a policy is declined by an employee in the online safety management system, the administrator who last updated the policy will be sent and email with the details of the decline (employee name, location, position, policy that was declined, reason given).  However, these messages do not go out for policy acknowledgements, in which the employee chose to leave a comment (usually a suggestion).

Until now, an administrator would need to go into each policy details page and view the comments (both declines and acknowledgements) there.  This would normally be part of the annual review process (if you have the setting specified accordingly for policy reviews).  At the request of a few customers, we've now added a report that can be generated from the policy list, which shows all recent comments (within 90 days).  The report lists the comments from the most to least recent, the employee details, the policy to which the comment pertains, the comment itself, and whether or not the policy was was declined.

A few of our client training managers find it difficult to always stay current with approving all the certificates that employees or safety administrators have scanned.  Naturally you want to make sure there weren't any errors or exagerations when the certificate details were entered, but you don't want to frustrate the employees that have satisfied their end of the bargain by completing the training and submitting their ticket(s).

A new component setting in "Certificate Tracking" allows you to choose whether you want your employees' compliance to reflect certificates when they are submitted, as in the example above, or when they are approved.

The following collage of screenshots explains the impact of changing the setting:

1.  The training manager(s) are delinquent on approving certificates, and one or more tickets have been submitted, but not yet approved, as reflected in the administrator's reminders.
2. You change the setting to "On Submission" (from the default of "After Approval"), and...
3. Your employees' compliance will be increased according to the number of pending certificates that suddenly become considered "compliant.

Please keep in mind that if the training manager reviews a pending certificate, and either changes the expiry date, or deletes the certificate because it does not meet the training requirements, an employee's compliance will revert back to reflect the lack of a valid certificate for that category. 

Enform has officially "withdrawn" their Industry Recommended Practice on Basic Safety Awareness Training (known as IRP 16 in the energy industry), and replaced it with a guidebook on Industry General Safety Orientation, using either the acronym IGSO or GSO.


In this new guideline, as in recommended practices in the past, they have, of course, endorsed their own training, as well as those by the Alberta Construction Safety Association, as well as the Pipeline Construction Safety Association. Enform has even gone so far as to suggest that employers may submit their orientation programs to Enform for evaluation, in order to display a "unique identifier" to imprint on their wallet certificates and worker orientation records.  Fortunately they do admit, in writing, that "It is up to the owner or prime contractor to accept any of the general safety orientations provided by employers and their contractors."  This pretty much slams the door on the industry associations' oligopoly on basic safety awareness training, which is ridiculous anyway, given the fact that safety orientations are mandated in all provinces by regulation.

So, with that in mind, you may notice that the term "IRP 16" will be gradually replaced by "IGSO" in some pages in the Training component within the SafetySync software. You may also see that some topics have either been added or removed from the "recommended" column under IGSO, in order to satisfy the new guideline.  In light of these changes, training administrators may want to review their selected courses and lessons to ensure they meet the IGSO standard (and of course, most importantly, the hazards that exist in their workplace).

Two important changes to note:

1. Companies are no longer required to complete the IRP 16 gap analysis checklist and declaration, and correspondingly Enform will no longer maintain a database of companies that have registered the declaration.
2. The orientation cards that will now print from within the SafetySync portal will have slightly different wording (to reflect the new "IGSO" Industry General Safety Orientation)

The guidebook is a bit vague on what and how to submit the program to Enform for evaluation.  For the time being, until these issues are clarified, we will prepare and make available in the SafetySync administrator portal, a report listing the GSO content and corresponding program page # "where covered".  It also seems that Enform may require an example of an "Employee Record of Orientation", which we will also make available in the administrator portal.  [This report requires a "Date Hired" field, which will be added to the Employee Details page.]

As always, the IGSO training will be available free with the SafetySync Basic plan.  If you have any questions about setting up your orientation program, please contact our sales department.

Some time ago, we added the ability to track which users in the system were "employees" and which were "subcontractors" (along with the subcontractor company name).  Until recently though, the company address that printed on the tickets was always the prime contractor's address (the company that held the SafetySync account).  At the request of a few clients that primarily hire subcontractors, we've added new textbox fields to the Employee Details screen.  When the user type "Contractor" is chosen, a section expands to show additional textboxes for the subcontractor's company name, address, city, province and postal code.


Now when a subcontractor's wallet card prints out (available upon completion of the required training course), the certificate now shows the subcontractor's company name and address.  Since regulated training tickets (such as TDG and WHMIS) require the name and address of the "employer" to be displayed, this new functionality satisfies this requirement.

Keep in mind that since the "employer" is, in fact, not the prime contractor in this situation, the authorized training manager's signature (if loaded into the system), will not display for subcontractors.  Subcontractors will need to sign their own tickets, since they are technically their own employer.  The prime contractor (account holder's) logo will still display to the right of the subcontractor company and address.

There has been some confusion about the new "National Standard" for COR (Certificate of Recognition).  The "National Standard" claim by the CFCSA (Canadian Federation of Construction Safety Associations) is made especially misleading by the fact their website mentions that it is nationally trademarked, presumably by the association.

This "National Standard" applies only to the construction industry.  Certifying partners in other industries have been administering CORs for many years, and do not endorse the construction standard.  Enform, for example, publishes the audit protocol for the oil and gas industry, and have recently updated their requirements in 2011, which have little resemblance to the construction requirements.  Similarly, WorkSafe BC publishes large and small company COR audit protocols for a wide range of industries, and it too does not follow the "National Standard" [Note: the BC audit review instruments are also available in SafetySync].  And neither of these organizations makes any claims or references to trademarks.

Despite all this, the "National Standard" is certainly a good idea, even if it only applies to the construction industry.  It allows safety management systems like ours to design common functionality around a general set of expectations.  [The audit protocols are remarkably similar though, even between industries and across provinces.]  Despite the goal of having a single list of requirements for the construction industry across Canada, provincial organizations are creating work-arounds.  In Manitoba, for example, the CSAM has added a 14th section to the audit requirements covering specific topics such as Hearing Conservation, Lockout / Tagout and Working Alone.

The good news for our current and prospective clients construction industry is that our audit review component now has functionality to help HSE personnel compile and prepare for the CFCSA National Standard, and the CSAM Manitoba supplement (section 14).
 
Simply check the box next to the appropriate audit standard(s) within the administrator portal in SafetySync to start managing these or any other COR audit protocols.

Service companies in Canada might be discouraged to learn that another subcontractor pre-qualification service/website has arrived on the scene.  PICS Auditing from Irvine, California has been in business for a while, but has only recently appeared on the radar North of the border when Suncor started using its service.

Like ISNetworld RAVS, they are trying to offer a more comprehensive pre-qualification than simply the registry of insurance documents and questions required by ComplyWorks.  Rumor has it that the PICS staff conduct video conferences with a subcontractor safety representative, and ask the person to hold up policies and records to the screen as a way of demonstrating compliance.  This seems at first glance to be yet another redundancy with the COR safety audits, which are performed in person.  PICS claims to be popular though:

They claim to be "preferred" by 81% of contractors (presumably over ISNetworld?)  I wonder if the number would be so high if they asked the contractor if they felt the PICS audit was useful if they had already passed their COR audit.

Regardless of whether the industry needs 3 subcontractor management systems in addition to COR audits, the fact remains that these subcontractors need to manage their safety programs and produce the compliance reports that these audits, reviews or questionnaires ask for.   Please call or email us if you would like an explanation of how an online safety management system like SafetySync can help you satisfy the requirements of these subcontractor audits, reviews and questionnaires.

We'll be the first to admit that some of the content in the Online Training module can be a little dry.  After a number of hours of listening to a narrator explain the merits of fit testing respirators and recording hazard assessments, employees can tend to tune-out the messages.  We're always adding various different "versions" of all our lessons, so as an administrator, we highly recommend you preview all the available video links for each topic, and choose the ones that are appropriate for the hazards at your workplace, but also entertaining enough that your employees will enjoy taking the training.

The Workers' Compensation Board of Nova Scotia created arguably the most entertaining safety awareness videos we have ever seen.  They're short, and primarily geared at young workers, but the combination of creative drawing of a stickman, with a brilliant voice talent, makes them instant classics.

If you receive feedback from your employees that some of the SafetySync training can be dull or mundane, sprinkle in a few of these versions.  Here are the courses and lessons in which the Rod Stickman versions are available:

• Common Worksite Injuries
  • Heavy Lifting and Back Injuries
• Fall Prevention
  • Introduction to Slips, Trips and Falls
  • Elevated Falls - Working at Heights
• Occupational Health and Safety
  • Rights and Responsibilities
  • Right to Refuse Unsafe Work
• Return to Work
  • The Return to Work Program

We are certain that if you choose the "WorkSafeForLife" versions of these lessons in the OHSMS, you'll see your course feedback scores in SafetySync for these safety topics increase dramatically. And you'll hear some hearty laughs too.