Writing Safety Instructions

Users don't suck, but the information provided to them can. If your IFU reads like a legal contract, people won’t read it. Why? Because they’re confusing. Too wordy. Too complex. Too scattered. A great IFU should feel like having a clear-headed expert guiding you step by step. The user needs to know what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. Here's 20 recommendations/writing rules to improve your IFU↴ 1. Write procedures in short, identifiable steps, and in the correct order. 2. Before listing steps, tell the reader how many steps are in the procedure. 3. Limit each step to no more than three logically connected actions. 4. Make instructions for each action clear and definite. 5. Tell the user what to expect from an action. 6. Discuss common use errors and provide information to prevent and correct them. 7. Each step should fit on one page. 8. Avoid referring the user to another place in the manual (no cross-referencing). 9. Use as few words as possible to present an idea or describe an action. 10. Use no more than one clause in a sentence. 11. Write in a natural, conversational way. Avoid overly formal language. 12. Express ideas of similar content in similar form. 13. Users should be able to read instructions aloud easily. Avoid unnecessary parentheses. 14. Use the same term consistently for devices and their parts. 15. Use specific terms instead of vague descriptions. 16. Use active verbs rather than passive voice. 17. Use action verbs instead of nouns formed from verbs. 18. Avoid abbreviations or acronyms unless necessary. Define them when first used and stay consistent. 19. Use lay language instead of technical jargon, especially for medical devices intended for laypersons. 20. Define technical terms the first time they appear and keep definitions simple. Prioritize the user while ensuring MDR/IVDR compliance.

Say what you actually mean in your SOPs. Here’s what your auditor is thinking when they review a procedure: “Do these instructions tell me exactly what will happen every single time… or are they relying on the operator’s best guess?” Most SOPs collapse under the weight of that question because they’re packed with subjective language. If you use language like "uniform" or "until mixed", set objective limits for what that actually means for the operator. If you want predictable outcomes, you have to eliminate as much subjectivity as possible from your written procedures. Here are 3 steps to eliminate subjectivity from your SOPs: 1. Replace vague verbs with measurable, objective actions. Cut words like inspect, ensure, verify, and check unless you define how the action occurs. Use specifics: “Measure torque to 18–22 in-lb,” “Visually inspect per ANSI Z1.4 using (form #) Defect Acceptance Criteria.” 2. Define acceptance criteria. Terms like “clean,” “uniform,” “properly labeled,” and “intact” mean different things to different people. Give the target ranges, parameters, tolerances, and/or visual standards that remove interpretation. 3. Make the sequence as error-proof as possible. Number the steps. Add photos. Be specific. Remove optional language. If three operators can read it three different ways, you don’t have a suggestion document, not an SOP. Auditors don’t care how pretty the document looks. Well, most don't care how pretty the document looks. They care whether the instructions eliminate subjectivity and produce the same result every time. If you want fewer deviations, fewer surprises, and a more consistent quality system, start with this: Say exactly what you mean. Then write your SOPs so no one has to guess. If you want a quick confidential review of an SOP you wrote, redact it, and send it over.

If I had a dollar for every organization I've worked with where the SOPs were good, I wouldn't have a dollar. From my work with companies such as GSK, Novartis, and Pfizer, I hold that: 📋 SOPs must be functional above all else. Their purpose is to help people complete tasks successfully and safely, on time, with expected outcomes. ❌ But most SOPs fail because of: 1. Too Much Information • Every task 20+ steps • Information not concise or focused • Steps containing rationales (belongs in policy docs) • Poor titles that don't indicate task purpose Example of what NOT to do: "Please take a moment to review the testing documentation below." (It's not a favor—just write "Review the testing documentation") 2. Format & Language Issues ⚠️ • Walls of text without reading cues • No white space for visual breaks • Complex words where simple ones work ("utilize" vs "use") • Multiple actions crammed into single steps Real example of what NOT to do: "Remove one packet from the pouch and carefully add all contents to the water sample, swirl the sample until all the reagent dissolves into the solution." (That's 3 separate steps crammed into one!) 3. Structure Problems 🔍 • Steps not chronological • Sections bleeding into each other • Missing process mapping (critical for understanding flow) • Key information (like definitions) buried at the back ✅ The solution starts with three key principles: 1. Map Before Writing 🗺️Process mapping isn't optional; it's the foundation for any usable SOP (like your clinical trials, start with a protocol, not a prayer). 2. Write for Real Use ✍️One action per step, simple language (save the fluff for your cotton swabs). 3. Structure for Success 🎯Put key information where readers need it (hint: definitions belong up front, like your safety goggles). 💡 As I tell my pharma clients: "Will incorporating these concepts make your SOPs longer? Yes, sorry. Will it make them more usable? Yes, not sorry." ⚠️ Because in pharma, unusable SOPs aren't just inefficient—they're a compliance risk (or worse, accident) waiting to happen. Questions? AMA in the comments ⤵︎

I've spent years writing safety procedures nobody follows. Then I realized why.   I'd been writing them on a separate piece of paper.   Here's the thing...   When you create a "Safe Work Practice" that lives separate from the operational SOP, you've just told the whole company that safety is optional.   And no, I don't mean that's how YOU see it.   I mean, that's how the system you built sees it.   Two documents = two systems = two priorities.   And operations ALWAYS wins that fight.   Look at what happens when safety lives in its own document:   → New hires learn the operational way first. Safety becomes the "extra binder" the trainer mentions at the end of week one.   → Supervisors enforce the SOP. Safety nags about the safe work practice. Now you're the bad guy AGAIN.   → A shortcut shows up. It skips a step in the safety doc, but the SOP still gets followed. Nobody escalates it.   → Operations updates their SOP without telling you. Your safe work practice is outdated 90 days later.   → An incident happens. The investigation reveals the safe work practice wasn't followed. The employee says, "I was following the SOP." Both are true.   This is the broken foundation most safety programs are built on.   It's why you keep feeling like you're pushing a boulder uphill.   So I stopped writing two documents.   I started integrating safety INTO the operations document.   I write the information in the Safety programs and the related Safe Work Practices.   Those work practices get combined into the Operations SOP.   Safety advises. Quality advises. Operations owns it.   When safety lives inside the SOP, it stops being optional.   It becomes the job.   Skipping the safety step is no longer "ignoring safety." It's an operational violation. Now your supervisors enforce it FOR you.   THAT is how you stop being the safety police.   If you've combined your safety docs into your operational SOPs - what changed? And if you haven't, what's stopping you?   ----- Enjoy this? ♻️ Repost it to your network and follow Brye Sargent, CSP for more.   If you're tired of doing all the work and getting none of the credit, this guide shows you how to layer influence into every safety task you're already doing.   Download it here: https://lnkd.in/eAj4_WGY

I am working in a warehouse where English is a second language for many teammates. English is my only language. Turns out the communication gap was mine to close. A few (humbling) highlights: I once said, “Let’s hit the ground running.” One guy looked at me, pointed to the floor, and asked, “Where are we running?” I told the team to “break down that pallet” and came back to find the actual pallet boards stacked on the floor. What I’ve learned (and what actually works): Ditch the jargon. Use concrete, simple phrasing: “Cancel line 3,” “Wrap 8 pallets,” “Stage at Door 6.” Avoid idioms, acronyms, and double meanings. One action per sentence. Show, don’t just say. Write it, draw it, label it. Use whiteboards, sample labels, aisle maps, photos, and bilingual signs. Pictures beat paragraphs. Close the loop. Ask someone to repeat the plan or demo step one. Encourage questions and blame the instructions, not the person: “If this isn’t clear, that’s on me.” Moral: Clarity isn’t about “talking slower”—it’s about leading better. In a multilingual operation, respect looks like instructions that anyone can follow the first time. When we simplify, visualize, and verify, quality goes up, safety improves, and the team wins. #leadership #operations #warehousing #communication #clarity #continuousimprovement

𝐀𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐲, 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐤𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠. Supervisors were frustrated. They had a 60-page SOP—clear, logical, and detailed. On paper, everything 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 have worked. But in the field, tasks were missed. Errors repeated. And the same question kept coming up: “𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴?” When we shadowed a crew, the answer was 𝐨𝐛𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬. The thick SOP binder sat in the truck. Nobody opened it. 𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞. It was because the SOP was: -Written in corporate jargon -Impossible to navigate quickly -Out of sync with how the work really flowed We rebuilt it into a one-page visual with clear checkpoints for feedback. Suddenly, crews were using it. Compliance skyrocketed. Telling people to “follow the process” isn’t leadership. 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐬. #behaviorscience #leadership #safety #process