Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Never audit alone--the case for audit teams.

N H Adams1

  • 1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Technical Services Branch, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.

Quality Assurance (San Diego, Calif.)
|March 15, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Quality assurance reviews: how they differ from peer reviews.

Quality assurance (San Diego, Calif.)·1999
Same author

The use of method detection limits in environmental measurements.

Quality assurance (San Diego, Calif.)·1998
Same author

Induction of CYP1A1 and ALDH-3 in lymphoid tissues from Fisher 344 rats exposed to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD).

Toxicology and applied pharmacology·1996
Same author

Comparative assessment of metabolic enzyme levels in macrophage populations of the F344 rat.

Biochemical pharmacology·1995
Same author

Regulation of cytochrome P-450 isozymes by methylenedioxyphenyl compounds.

Chemico-biological interactions·1993
Same author

Attitudes of psychiatric patients and their relatives to involuntary treatment.

The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry·1991
Same journal

Peer Review as a QA Tool in Environmental Applications.

Quality assurance (San Diego, Calif.)·2006
Same journal

The use of double anonymity in peer review: a decision whose time has come?

Quality assurance (San Diego, Calif.)·2006
Same journal

Major issues in quality assessment and improvement of clinical hyperbaric services: an international perspective.

Quality assurance (San Diego, Calif.)·2006
Same journal

Evaluation of customer satisfaction level of different projects.

Quality assurance (San Diego, Calif.)·2006
Same journal

Establishing tolerance levels for customer complaints.

Quality assurance (San Diego, Calif.)·2006
Same journal

The historical impact of ISO 9000 on Lebanese firms.

Quality assurance (San Diego, Calif.)·2005
See all related articles

Sending multiple auditors for on-site quality assurance (QA) audits enhances safety and efficiency. This approach ensures comprehensive skill coverage and provides better support, ultimately proving more cost-effective than single-auditor missions.

Area of Science:

  • Environmental Science
  • Quality Assurance
  • Auditing Methodologies

Background:

  • On-site audits are crucial for effective quality assurance (QA) programs.
  • Resource limitations often lead to proposals for single-auditor missions.
  • This practice presents significant risks and limitations.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To elucidate the critical reasons why multiple auditors are necessary for effective on-site QA audits.
  • To challenge the cost-saving perception of single-auditor deployments.
  • To advocate for a multi-auditor approach in field audits.

Main Methods:

  • The study outlines the rationale for multi-auditor field audits based on safety, skill requirements, observational perspectives, logistical support, and economic factors.

Related Experiment Videos

  • It analyzes the inherent risks and limitations of single-auditor assignments in complex environmental projects.

    • Main Results:

    • Single-auditor missions pose safety risks in hazardous environments and remote locations.
    • Multidisciplinary projects require diverse expertise unlikely to be found in one auditor.
    • Two auditors offer complementary skills, enhanced surveillance, and improved support, leading to more thorough assessments.

    Conclusions:

    • Deploying multiple auditors is safer, smarter, and more effective for on-site QA.
    • Contrary to perceived cost savings, multi-auditor teams can be more economical in the long run.
    • A multi-auditor strategy optimizes resource utilization and improves the overall quality of audit outcomes.