Independent and not affiliated with the FDA, MHRA, ISPE, PDA, or any agency. Get the appgoutham@madhadi.com
madhadi.comData Integrity & GxP Quality
Browse all topics → Articles Templates & Procedures Learning paths GlossaryScenariosToolsRegulatory ReferencesLearning PathsTopics About Start here
Form Plug-and-play starting point Quality Assurance

Form: SOP Review and Approval Record

A controlled form that captures the review and approval of a new or revised SOP, the reviewers, their findings and resolutions, training and effective-date alignment, and the signatures that make it traceable to the version, with a filled specimen.

Document type: Form

Read and copy the template below into your own quality system. It is a generic starting point for your own internal use, provided as is, with no warranty; see the Terms and License. Adopting it does not by itself create compliance.

This is a controlled form. It records the review and approval of a new or revised SOP so the decision is traceable to a specific version, the reviewers and their findings are documented, and the effective date is tied to training completion. Replace each <<FILL: ...>> placeholder, route it with the SOP through your document control system, and retain it with the change control record. A worked filled specimen follows. This form is the evidence that 21 CFR 211.100(b) and your own document control SOP were satisfied, not a substitute for them.

Document control header

FieldEntry
Form titleSOP Review and Approval Record
Form number<<FILL: form ID, e.g. SOP-QA-001-F2>>
Form version<<FILL: e.g. 1.0>>
Linked SOP number<<FILL: SOP-ID>>
Linked SOP version<<FILL: version being approved>>
Change control reference<<FILL: CR-ID, or "N/A, initial issue">>

1. SOP under review

FieldEntry
SOP title<<FILL: title>>
SOP number and version<<FILL: SOP-ID, version>>
New or revised<<FILL: New / Revised>>
Supersedes<<FILL: prior version, or "New">>
Author / process owner<<FILL: role and name>>
Reason for issue or change<<FILL: what changed and why; for a revision, specific enough to reconstruct the prior requirement>>

2. Review summary

Each reviewer records the scope of their review, whether they found defects, and confirms their findings were resolved before they signed. A reviewer who found defects does not sign as approved until the resolution is verified.

Review typeReviewer (role, name)Defects found (Y/N)Findings referenceResolved and verified (Y/N)Date
Technical / SME accuracy<<FILL>><<FILL>><<FILL: e.g. comment log, attached>><<FILL>><<FILL>>
Usability dry run (real user)<<FILL>><<FILL>><<FILL>><<FILL>><<FILL>>
Quality Assurance / compliance<<FILL>><<FILL>><<FILL>><<FILL>><<FILL>>
Cross-functional (if applicable)<<FILL>><<FILL>><<FILL>><<FILL>><<FILL>>

3. Findings and resolution log

#Finding (raised by)SeverityResolutionVerified byDate
1<<FILL>><<FILL: critical / major / minor>><<FILL>><<FILL>><<FILL>>
2<<FILL>><<FILL>><<FILL>><<FILL>><<FILL>>

All findings of critical or major severity must be resolved and verified before approval. The disposition of any deferred minor finding must be stated with a reason.

4. Pre-approval confirmations

The author and QA confirm each of the following is true before signatures are applied. Any “No” blocks approval.

#ConfirmationYes / No / N/A
4.1The drafting and readiness checklist was completed and all defects closed or dispositioned.<<FILL>>
4.2All referenced forms exist under document control with a version.<<FILL>>
4.3Each cited regulation, standard, or annex was confirmed against its current published version.<<FILL>>
4.4A real revision history entry is prepared, traceable to the change control reference.<<FILL>>
4.5Affected roles and the training requirement are identified.<<FILL>>
4.6The effective date is set to fall on or after training completion.<<FILL>>

5. Training and effective date alignment

A new or revised SOP cannot take effect before the people who must follow it are trained on it.

FieldEntry
Affected roles requiring training<<FILL>>
Training method<<FILL: read-and-understand / classroom / on-the-job, with assessment if required>>
Training completion target<<FILL: date>>
Planned effective date<<FILL: date, on or after training completion>>
Effective date confirmed after training (Y/N)<<FILL>>

If the effective date is set before training can complete, the form is returned; there must be no window where the SOP is in force but staff are untrained.

6. Approval signatures

Signatures certify that the named version of the SOP has been reviewed, all critical and major findings are resolved, and the document is fit to be issued. Signatures must be traceable to the version above, wet ink or compliant electronic signature.

RoleNameSignatureDate
Author / process owner<<FILL>>
Technical reviewer / SME<<FILL>>
Quality Assurance<<FILL>>
Management approver (if required)<<FILL>>

7. Document control use only

FieldEntry
Effective date applied<<FILL>>
Superseded version archived (Y/N)<<FILL>>
Training records linked (Y/N)<<FILL>>
Distribution updated (Y/N)<<FILL>>
Document controller (name, date)<<FILL>>

References

21 CFR 211.100(b) (written procedures shall be followed and documented at the time of performance). 21 CFR 211.22(d) (the quality unit’s procedures shall be in writing) and 211.25 (training). 21 CFR Part 11 (electronic records and electronic signatures), where signatures are electronic. EU GMP (EudraLex Volume 4) Chapter 4, Documentation, and Annex 11 where applicable. ICH Q10, Pharmaceutical Quality System.

Confirm the current version and clause numbers of each reference before use.


Filled specimen

The following shows the form completed for an example revision, version 2.0 of a procedure for receiving and quarantining incoming raw material samples. The company, IDs, names, and dates are illustrative; replace them with your own.

Header and SOP under review (specimen)

FieldEntry
Form number / versionSOP-QA-001-F2, v1.0
Linked SOPSOP-QC-014, version 2.0
Change control referenceCR-2026-0188
New or revisedRevised
SupersedesVersion 1.0
Author / process ownerQC Supervisor, A. Rao
Reason for changeAdded a defined out-of-range failure path at the temperature check and brought the Sample Receipt Log under document control as SOP-QC-014-F1.

Review summary (specimen)

Review typeReviewerDefects foundResolved and verifiedDate
Technical / SMEM. DiazYY22 Jun 2026
Usability dry runJ. Okafor (new analyst)YY22 Jun 2026
Quality AssuranceR. GomezNN/A23 Jun 2026

Findings and resolution log (specimen)

#FindingSeverityResolutionVerified byDate
1Temperature step had no acceptance range and no out-of-range path.MajorAdded “2 C to 8 C”, and a stop/quarantine/deviation/notify path.M. Diaz22 Jun 2026
2Sample Receipt Log was an unversioned spreadsheet.MajorBrought under control as SOP-QC-014-F1 v1.0.R. Gomez23 Jun 2026

Training and effective date (specimen)

FieldEntry
Affected rolesReceiving analysts, QC laboratory
Training methodRead-and-understand with a short assessment
Training completion target14 Jul 2026
Planned effective date15 Jul 2026
Effective date confirmed after trainingY

In this specimen both major findings were resolved and verified before any signature was applied, the form was brought under control before approval, and the effective date was set one day after training completion. The record shows an inspector exactly who reviewed what, what they found, how it was fixed, and that no one followed the revised SOP before being trained.

Common inspection findings this form prevents

  • An approved SOP with no record of who reviewed it or what they checked.
  • A revision in use before its approval, or staff following an unapproved draft.
  • An SOP effective before the affected staff were trained on it.
  • Approval signatures that cannot be tied to the specific version that was issued.
  • Findings raised in review that were never shown to be resolved before sign-off.
  • A revision with no traceable change reason, so the prior requirement cannot be reconstructed.
  • Referenced forms that were still uncontrolled at the moment of approval.

How to adapt this form

  1. Set the form number and version to match your document control numbering, and link it to your SOP-of-SOPs.
  2. Adjust the review types in section 2 to your defined roles; keep the usability dry run as a distinct, recorded review.
  3. Define your severity scale in section 3 and which severities block approval in your system.
  4. Keep section 5 (training and effective date alignment) mandatory; the training-to-effective-date window is a frequent finding.
  5. Attach this completed form and the reviewer comment log to the change control record so the approval evidence travels with the SOP.
  6. Confirm every cited regulation against its current published version before relying on this form.
Use madhadi.com as an app Full screen, works offline, one tap from your home screen.