QUESTION 1: In the RQC Handbook, Chapter VII, Field Audit "Review of completed Work", the question asks, "Is a periodic statewide review of completed field audits performed to ensure uniform quality throughout the SESA?
- Is the above question referring to any or all types of reviews for Items
in the grid?
- How should this question be answered if 100% of audits are reviewed
on an ongoing basis?
- The definition for Quality Assurance ---"A periodic review to measure the performance of a function at a point where errors are most likely to occur."--- needs some clarification. Would a non-supervisory review group which reviews 100 percent of the audit cases (with no criteria for selecting cases to be reviewed) meet the definition for a Quality Assurance System.
ANSWER:
- No. Questions in the grid and the above question are to be answered
separately. The above question is designed to cover situations where a
review of audits is conducted for the entire SESA field operation to ensure
consistency in quality; interpretation of law etc. between the various
State offices or districts.
The question in the grid -- "Was a review conducted" --refers to the systematic review of the components in an audit
Activities in the "periodic statewide review" question build on the functions examined in the grid review and together are designed to ensure quality in the SESA FA operation.
- It should be answered "yes". If 100 percent of the audits
are reviewed on an ongoing basis as provided for by the SESA's procedures,
that becomes the periodic review.
- No, it would not meet the criteria. RQC's definition of "Quality
Assurance" is the type of review which targets an area suspected
to be in error. For instance, the Quality Assurance team may come in with
the purpose of scrutinizing FA in regard to their search for misclassified
workers. The intent of the questions in the grid is to get an idea as
to what type of review is most effective in ensuring that audits are of
good quality. After data are gathered, RQC may be able to suggest that
an overall peer review of 20 percent of Field Audits is just as effective
as 100 percent of supervisory review in ensuring the accuracy of field
audits.
December 1994
