EPHM7320 Chap.10 Audit, Corrective Action and Improvement
Audit, Corrective Action and Improvement
Completion is not effectiveness
Internal audit tests conformity and effective implementation using defined criteria, scope and impartial evidence. Management review combines incidents, monitoring, compliance evaluation, audits, worker participation, resources, communications and changing risks to make system decisions.
Corrective action reacts to the immediate condition, investigates root causes, addresses similar exposure, implements change and later tests effectiveness. Improvement is a verified change in performance rather than additional paperwork. Audit findings need criteria, objective evidence and sampling limits. Corrective actions should match supported causes, with success measures chosen before closure.
Leading and lagging information gain meaning only when exposure and reporting context are understood. Management review completes the cycle by changing priorities, ownership, resources or controls and following those decisions through.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Audit criteria and scope
- 02
Competence, objectivity and impartiality
- 03
Conformity and implementation
- 04
Management-review inputs and outputs
- 05
Correction and corrective action
- 06
Effectiveness and continual improvement
Worked example · free
Correct repeated overdue inspections
- 3Separate immediate correction from root cause.
- 4Design a system-level corrective action.
- 3Define effectiveness evidence.
Key terms
- Internal Audit
- A planned, objective evaluation of conformity and effective management-system implementation.
- Audit Criterion
- The requirement or standard against which collected evidence is evaluated.
- Nonconformity
- A failure to meet a management-system, standard or process requirement.
- Correction
- Action that removes or repairs the immediate detected problem.
- Corrective Action
- Action addressing a cause so the same or similar problem becomes less likely to recur.
- Management Review
- Top management's integrated decision process on system suitability, adequacy, effectiveness and improvement.
- Continual Improvement
- Recurring enhancement of the management system and OHS performance using reviewed evidence.
Audit, Corrective Action and Improvement FAQ
What is the difference between conformity and effectiveness?
Conformity asks whether requirements are met, while effectiveness asks whether the implemented system achieves its intended outcomes. A procedure and completed form may conform in appearance but remain ineffective if hazardous conditions or repeated failures continue.
How does management review differ from an internal audit?
Audit samples evidence against defined criteria and evaluates conformity and implementation. Management review combines audit results with incidents, monitoring, compliance, participation, resources, communication and changing context to make strategic decisions about the system.
When can a corrective action be closed?
Completion evidence shows that the planned work occurred, but closure should also consider whether later evidence demonstrates that the targeted cause or risk changed. Define the measure, observation period, responsible reviewer and decision rule before implementation.
Exam move
Build a four-column improvement log: finding, root cause, action and effectiveness evidence. Use a different source of evidence in each practice, such as audit, incident, measurement or worker report. Finish by stating what management review should decide from the combined pattern. Plan an audit from objective and scope through criteria, sampling, collection, evaluation and reporting.
For every audit question, identify the criterion before deciding whether the evidence conforms. Gather a balanced sample from documents, records, observation and interviews, and trace selected controls from policy or procedure to actual work and back to performance evidence.
Do not claim certainty from one clean sample; describe sampling limits and look for consistency across shifts, locations, contractors and non-routine conditions. Write findings with criterion, objective evidence and a clear statement of conformity or nonconformity. Keep opportunities for improvement separate so that mandatory correction is not blurred with advice.
For a nonconformity, distinguish correction of the detected instance from corrective action on its cause. Containing a faulty guard, updating one record or retraining one person may restore the immediate condition but leave procurement, maintenance or supervision weaknesses intact.
Use causal analysis proportionate to risk and recurrence, verify that proposed actions address supported causes, and assign ownership, resources and deadlines. Before closure, ask whether the action was implemented as intended and whether it worked without creating new hazards.
Define the effectiveness evidence in advance: repeat observation, exposure data, reliability results, worker feedback, recurrence trend or a focused follow-up audit. Practise combining signals. A single incident, repeated audit finding, overdue maintenance pattern and worker concern may reveal a system issue that each data stream understates alone.
Management review should consider changing context, objectives, performance trends, compliance, resources, participation, audit results and improvement status, then make decisions that can be followed through. In exam answers, move from evidence to judgement to action, and identify escalation when risk is high or correction stalls.
End revision by taking one control from an earlier chapter and designing its assurance cycle: operational owner, leading measure, outcome measure, audit evidence, review frequency, failure trigger and corrective response. This demonstrates continual improvement as a governed feedback process rather than a slogan or an endless accumulation of paperwork.
