Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Product/Process information
Historical Data
Investigation presentation
Justifications
Attachments
Some people choose to answer these questions in bullet format, and some choose
to write in text format.
When asked which I would prefer, my answer is text format. The four major
questions are just simple guidance, a checklist, to ensure that everything is
included. But the answers are for your audience. By answering in bullet format,
most readers will have to work to piece the scenario together.
For example
Baby Formula
Low Vitamin C
2 weeks ago
Line #3
Versus
For the last 2 weeks, Baby Formula manufactured on Line #3 has been testing
low for Vitamin C
2. Product/Process Information
Consider providing your reader with some useful information about the product or
process involved in the event. It is all too easy for us to be so familiar with our
products and processes that we forget the reader may not be. This information
could be in the form of a picture or a process map. It could be useful for the reader
to see pictures of the item without the defect and with the defect. A process map
should always be provided wherever appropriate so the reader can visually
understand at what stage the event occurred. And indeed, this is often useful to
use for comparison during the investigation (what happened versus what should
have happened).
Background information could also be a description of what the product is used for
and how it works. Whatever you think may be a useful background for your reader
to understand the purpose of the product or process.
3. Historical Data
We actually view historical data (or should do) when we prepare our risk/impact
assessment. Without it, we cannot calculate our frequency of occurrence and
allow for this in arriving at our impact level. However, it is also useful to view this
data to learn from our mistakes (and make sure we do not take the same
Corrective/Preventive action again, as clearly it did not work).
4. Investigation Presentation
This tip is as much for the writer as the reader! When we use a quality tool like the
6Ms for our investigation, it can be quite difficult to follow the thought process
used. One report I reviewed listed 7 possible causes as a result of brainstorming
at the beginning of the investigation. However, it only discussed the data analysis
and findings of 4 possible causes.
There should be a closed loop within the investigation, and therefore all identified
possible causes should be followed through.
Possible cause 2
Possible cause 3
MACHINE
Possible cause 4
Possible cause 6
MATERIAL
Possible cause 7
Possible cause 8
MEASUREMENT
5. Justifications
The CAPA process needs to be a closed loop to be successful. At the end of our
evaluation of the quality issue, we need to assess the impact level in order to
make decisions and prioritise our investigations. At the end of our investigation, we
need a robust defensible root cause before we can move on to our CA/PA plan.
Similarly, with any sub-activities, we need to close the loop so there are no
questions left unanswered.
Sometimes, we will not be performing a correction for example. The key point here
is that if you are not doing something that would normally be expected, you need
to provide a clear and logical justification.
Most CAPA training courses discuss that acronyms should be defined upon first
use, or that a table of acronyms and their meaning are provided with the report.
My tip here is to avoid using acronyms in major fields for example, the initial
description of the quality event, and also in the executive summary. Approvers and
auditors will usually refer to the overall summary to get an overview before they
read the details. Having to understand what an acronym means is a distraction.
Make it easy for the reader!
7. Attachments
Attachments are an integral part of the overall report. What would be the point in
having them unless they contained information and evidence that were necessary
to support all the documented activities? Yet they often seem to be treated as an
after thought.
About the author: Julia Lawley has 15 years of experience in regulated industries. She has worked as a Master
Trainer for Abbott, conducting corporate wide training programs in Root Cause Analysis, Conducting
Investigations, and Writing Effective reports. Additionally, she worked as a European Deployment manager for
global CAPA certification programs which included business assessments, compliance assessments, and training.
She has developed and performed global nonconformity and deviation IT system training throughout Europe and
Asia.