|
Experience can also present a unique challenge. After auditing thousands of records, we recognize patterns quickly and develop methods that help us work efficiently. Years of education and practical experience shape how we interpret documentation, and much of that knowledge makes us better auditors. Yet the same familiarity can create habits we no longer think to question. A conclusion that once required careful research may eventually become something we accept automatically.
When Familiar Practices Become Assumed Requirements
Over time, an auditor may become confident that something is a requirement simply because that is how they have audited it for years. Statements such as “This has to be documented,” “We never give credit for that,” or “This is how we have always interpreted the guideline” can become familiar explanations for audit decisions. Regardless of who makes those statements, they should prompt the same question: What is the authoritative support for that conclusion?
This is one reason QA remains valuable even for the auditor performing everyone else’s reviews. Another qualified auditor may recognize that a finding relies on an internal standard rather than published guidance. They may offer a different interpretation of unclear guidance or notice that an educational recommendation has gradually become an audit requirement. These distinctions matter because they affect both the findings we report and the expectations we communicate to providers.
Having someone challenge our reasoning gives us an opportunity to revisit the source, explain our interpretation, and determine whether the conclusion still holds. Sometimes that review will confirm our original finding. Other times, it will reveal an assumption that needs to change. Both outcomes serve the purpose of QA.
QA Should Support Calibration
One of the biggest obstacles to reviewing experienced auditors is how we perceive the review itself. If QA feels like an attempt to catch mistakes or question someone’s qualifications, resistance is understandable. A healthy QA program makes review a routine part of maintaining quality, with the same expectations applying across levels of experience and responsibility.
The focus should be on calibration: whether auditors are applying the same criteria, supporting their conclusions, and distinguishing published guidance from organizational policy and professional judgment. Review should also consider whether findings accurately communicate what the documentation supports. These questions are relevant to every auditor, including those who typically make the final call.
Approaching QA this way creates room for professional discussion. Auditors can explain their reasoning, compare sources, and work through differences without treating every disagreement as evidence that someone lacks expertise. That process helps strengthen individual judgment and consistency across the team.
Include the QA Auditor in the Quality Process
Someone will always need to take responsibility for difficult audit decisions, but that authority should not place their work beyond review. Organizations can rotate QA responsibilities among qualified senior auditors, conduct periodic peer reviews, or bring challenging findings into calibration discussions. They can also select completed audits from the QA auditor for the same objective review applied to other team members.
The purpose is to ensure that quality expectations apply throughout the audit process. Including senior reviewers reinforces that QA is a shared professional responsibility and gives those reviewers access to the feedback they routinely provide to others.
If we believe QA makes auditors stronger, then experience, credentials, seniority, and job title should not remove anyone from that process. Those responsible for auditing the auditors should have an established opportunity for their own work to be reviewed as well.
| 
