5 Signs Your Staff Haven’t Actually Read Your Policies and Procedures (And How to Fix It)

Sign #1: “Everyone signed it”… but practice is inconsistent

What you see:
Your system shows 100% acknowledgement, yet on the floor you’re seeing five different versions of the same process. One nurse does it one way, an HCA does it another, and agency staff are guessing.

What it usually means:
Staff are relying on habit, peer instruction, or “how we’ve always done it”—not the policy. This is especially common when policies are long, hard to find, or written in a way that doesn’t match real workflows.

How to fix it:

• Make the policy usable at point of care. If staff can’t access it in seconds, they won’t access it at all.
• Break complex procedures into clear steps (and make sure the steps match what’s actually possible on shift).
• Use quick checks for understanding (not just signatures).

How Cloda helps:
Cloda instantly provides staff with the answers they need from your approved policies and procedures. This means the policies you have invested in become a tool, not a file. Then, with quizzes and engagement tracking, you can confirm staff didn’t just “sign”—they understood.

Sign #2: Staff ask questions that the policy already answers

What you hear:

• “What’s the isolation process again?”
• “Do we still do two-person checks for that medication?”
• “Where do I document that incident?”

What it usually means:
The policy might exist, but it’s not living in the service. Staff don’t know where to find it, don’t trust it’s up to date, or don’t have the time to read it mid-shift.

How to fix it:

• Reduce friction: policies should be searchable, mobile-friendly, and clearly titled.
• Create one source of truth: staff shouldn’t be choosing between three versions of the same document.
• Turn policies into “answers,” not documents: staff need quick clarity, not a 22-page PDF.

How Cloda helps:
Cloda acts like a digital assistant for policy and procedure questions—helping staff get the right answer quickly, using your approved content. That means fewer interruptions, fewer assumptions, and more consistent care.

Sign #3: Acknowledgements happen suspiciously fast

What you notice:
A new policy goes out and—miraculously—everyone acknowledges it within a day. Or you see acknowledgements clustered at the end of a shift, or just before a deadline.

What it usually means:
Staff are clicking to stay compliant, not reading to stay safe. Again: not because they’re lazy, but because the system rewards speed and completion rather than comprehension.

This is where the Cloda data is a reality check: 3 seconds spent on a policy during acknowledgement is common. That’s a “tick box” behaviour created by a “tick box” process.

How to fix it:

• Measure engagement, not just completion. Time spent, revisit rates, and quiz results tell a more honest story.
• Use micro-learning: small, focused checks beat long “read and sign” tasks.
• Give staff a reason to engage: make it relevant to their role and shift reality.

How Cloda helps:
When services add a quiz, Cloda sees average engagement rise to 2.8 minutes. That’s not because staff suddenly have loads of spare time—it’s because the process has changed from “click to comply” to “pause and understand.”

Sign #4: Incidents and near-misses repeat in the same themes

What you see:
The same types of issues keep cropping up:

• Documentation gaps
• Safeguarding concerns not escalated correctly
• IPC steps missed
• Medicines errors
• Care plan updates not completed

What it usually means:
Either the policy isn’t clear, staff don’t know it, or the policy doesn’t translate into practice. Repeated themes are often a sign of training and policy not connecting.

How to fix it:

• Link incidents to policy topics. If falls are trending, focus policy engagement on falls prevention and post-fall monitoring.
• Target by role and risk. Not everyone needs every policy at the same depth.
• Close the loop: after an incident, reinforce the relevant procedure with a short check for understanding.

How Cloda helps:
When an incident occurs in your service, Cloda allows you to reissue the appropriate policy and procedure with a comprehension quiz to confirm understanding, acting as a corrective/preventative action. And the quiz insight is key here: 50% of staff fail the first attempt at a quiz, highlighting the value of incorporating it to improve comprehension.

Sign #5: Inspection questions expose “surface-level” knowledge

What inspectors ask (and what they’re really testing):

• “Talk me through your safeguarding process.”
• “How do you manage controlled drugs?”
• “How do you know staff are competent and up to date?”
• “How do you ensure staff follow the policy in practice?”

What it usually means when answers are vague:
Staff may know the headline (“we report concerns”), but not the steps, thresholds, documentation, or escalation pathway. Inspectors don’t just want to see a policy; they want evidence it’s understood and embedded.

How to fix it:

• Move from policy distribution to policy assurance.
• Build evidence that stands up in inspection: engagement records, quiz results, targeted follow-ups, and improvement actions.
• Make learning continuous: not annual, not only after something goes wrong.

How Cloda helps:
Cloda creates a clearer line between “we have a policy” and “our staff understand the policy.” You can show not just acknowledgements, but engagement and comprehension—plus where you identified gaps and what you did about them.

The uncomfortable truth: quizzes don’t create risk—they reveal it

Some leaders worry that quizzes will “make staff look bad” or create extra work. But the Cloda numbers tell a different story:

• 3 seconds spent when it’s just acknowledgement
• 2.8 minutes when a quiz is included
• 50% fail first time

That’s not a reason to avoid quizzes. It’s a reason to use them.

Because if half your staff can’t pass a basic check the first time, the risk already exists—it’s just hidden behind a signature.

Quizzes don’t replace training. They make training smarter. They show you:

• which policies are unclear
• which teams need support
• which topics are high risk
• whether your “evidence” reflects reality.