Policy Receipt is Not Training
Does signing a policy count as training?
This is a question that comes up frequently in accreditation, and people have some pretty strong opinions about it.
One argument I hear is that a policy signature confirms an employee received and acknowledged the policy. That acknowledgment can be important, particularly when an agency needs to establish that an employee was provided a policy they're later accused of violating.
Some even argue that a signed acknowledgment carries the same weight as training in disciplinary proceedings or court.
But here's my perspective: Acknowledging receipt of a policy doesn't necessarily mean someone understands it.
Let's face it. When employees have 100+ documents sitting in their PowerDMS inbox waiting for signatures, how many are carefully reading every word?
Even if you require a minimum amount of time before someone can sign, that doesn't guarantee they've read, understood, or retained the information.
And when an accreditation standard specifically requires training, rather than simply receipt or acknowledgment of a policy, that distinction matters. Assessors may expect evidence of an actual training activity.
If a standard requires training on a policy, here are a few approaches I've seen agencies use:
Add a knowledge assessment. Include a short multiple-choice test in PowerDMS that employees must pass before completing the acknowledgment.
Create a PowerDMS training course. Include the policy and a link to relevant online training as course elements, with a way to document completion.
Develop a short presentation. Create a PowerPoint covering the key points of the policy and distribute it through PowerDMS. You can set a minimum viewing time, although that alone doesn't verify understanding.
Conduct training during shift briefing. Have a supervisor review the policy's key requirements and document attendance with a sign-in roster.
Consider PowerRecall. This PowerDMS tool uses flashcards generated from policy content to reinforce important information and support retention. Determine what completion or learning records are available before relying on it as accreditation training proof.
Policy acknowledgments serve an important purpose. I'm not suggesting otherwise.
But when the standard says training, don't automatically assume a policy signature is enough.
Look at what the standard actually requires, consider what the assessor will need to verify, and choose a training method that provides appropriate documentation.
Receipt establishes acknowledgment. Training should provide an opportunity to learn and understand.
They're both valuable, but they don't always serve the same purpose.
Who do you know that could benefit from these accreditation-friendly tips and resources? Consider sharing this link with a colleague so they can sign up:https://www.accreditationacademy.net/signup
Areaka P. Jewell
Accreditation Academy
areaka@accreditationacademy.net
(305) 360-1075