SErIES IAEA HumAn HEAltH SErIES IAEA Hum

2.4.2. Review
The review process will utilize interviews, observations, documentation
review and measurements, and will be carried out in line with the audit schedule.
Sometimes the interviews, observations of work and documentary reviews
provide sufficient evidence of the local practice meeting ‘good’ practice
standards. Often, however, it is desirable to support these observations with the
results of suitable measurements or tests. These measurements and tests should
be carried out using appropriate methods and equipment independent of the host
facility/institution. The purpose of the tests and measurements is to verify the
technique and accuracy of the local methods, as well as the competence of the
local staff.
Some aspects of the audit process will be carried out by the whole audit
team; others will be carried out by relevant members of the audit team. The audit
report forms in Appendix IV, equipment-specific checklists in Annex III and
worksheets for physics procedures in Annex IV should be used by the team
members to guide and record their evaluations during the audit review. It should
be expected that all aspects of the diagnostic service will be reviewed in some
way.
The review will cover all of the elements outlined in Sections 3–5, under
the following headings:
—Quality management procedures and infrastructure;
—Patient related procedures;
—Technical procedures.
The review process and schedule of the audit visit are outlined in Appendix II.
At the end of the review, the audit team will prepare a draft report to be
presented at the exit briefing, using the supplied format (see Appendix III).
The auditors are expected to comment on the extent to which the facility/
institution has met the criteria for good practice as outlined in the guidelines. Any
significant issues should be verified prior to documentation in the draft report. It
is also appropriate to document positive findings regarding areas of good
practice.
The draft report should also include recommendations at two levels:
(1) Recommendations in regard to minor or major problems potentially
resolvable by the facility/institution;
(2) Recommendations in regard to major problems that may require
intervention from outside the facility/institution for resolution.
11