Here is a free template for things that you should include in an auditing closing meeting.
- Thank the auditees for their time
- Thank them for allowing you to audit them
- Remind the auditees of the reason for the audit
- Remind the auditees of the standard that you audited against
- Remind everyone that the audit is confidential
- State that you have only looked at a sample of the system
- State if the audit is invalid (you may have needed to see a specific activity and you did not see this)
- Explain how you will present your findings
- Confirm any non-conformities and observations raised
- Provide a closing summary on how the audit has gone
- State your final conclusions of the audit (satisfactory, unsatisfactory, etc.)
- Tell the auditees when they will receive the audit report
- Tell the auditees what they are expected to do once they receive the report
- Allow any questions
I hope that this is of use when auditing. If you need any auditor training – please visit our web-site for details of our IRCA registered Pharmaceutical Quality Management Systems Auditor/ Lead Auditor training course. Previous feedback is below.
“Excellent” “superb” “Fantastic” “Wonderful” “A fantastic experience”
“Wow – brilliant” “A truly brilliant course” “A real joy working with you”
“Absolutely brilliant” “Recommended to anyone within the pharma industry”
“You both are the best tutors I have come across in my entire life”
Regards, Dominic
Annex 1 has finally arrived, 25th Aug 2022 saw the publication of Annex 1. Normally, updates to GMP chapters and Annexes have a 6-month lead time for implementation. In the case of the new Annex 1, the lead time is 12 months, except for clause 8.123 relating to lyophilization which has 24 months lead time.
Annex 1 was first issued in 1971 as the only annex in the first ever UK guide to Good Manufacturing Practice. Since then, there have been several updates but not full revisions. In 2012 there was a proposal to revise Annex 1 with a re-proposal in 2014 by the UK’s MHRA. At the time, a full rewrite was considered unlikely and instead the intention was to provide a document that would confirm regulatory expectation and as such, not place any new requirements or costs on the pharmaceutical industry.
While this principle, is still upheld, it was clear from the first draft for public comment of December 2017, that a rewrite was being undertaken. The first draft created around 6200 comments coming from regulatory organizations, such as the pharmaceutical cooperation scheme, regulatory bodies outside of the EU, support organizations such as the Parenteral Drug Association, the Parenteral and Healthcare Sciences Society, the Pharmaceutical Microbiology Interest group as well as representatives from the manufacturers within the pharmaceutical industry to name just a few. Rarely do updates require a second public consultation but in the case of the annex 1 update a second draft was issued in March 2020 although this was a more targeted review in terms of the sections and clauses that comment was being sought for.
About the author
Andy Martin
Andy started working in the Pharmaceutical industry in 1985 as a lab technician for Smith & Nephew. Following this he had a number of roles culminating when he took over as QA Microbiology Manager. In 2003 he moved into Pharmaceutical Training and then in 2007 he moved back into Microbiology when he took up the position of Microbiology Manager for Catalent Pharma Solutions. Since 2012 he has operated as a consultant specialising in Microbiology and Quality Systems.
Training courses on Annex 1
There are a number of half-day workshops organised to take you through the changes in more detail and to look at how they relate to your organisation.
Our 2-day course is updated for Annex 1 changes
Related Articles
Find out about our course ranges
GMP Training
QMS Training
GDP/RP Training
GMP Compliance
QP Training
GDP Compliance
Free Taster courses
To try a free taster of our online courses to see if they are of interest visit this page.
I would like to add : apart from allowing any questions, also allow the Auditee to counter reasonably any finding which they may find is inappropriate or is in progress of an effort, with proof.
There is a typographical error –> guess where (=auditess instead of auditees), again the principle, in this case for the typist,
do proofreading before delivery of the work. (,I myself have overlooked to do proofreading before posting my comments and to my dismay I found some deficiencies e.g lacking to add ) at the end of a remark etc.