An audit is finished. The report is complete, the findings are written, and the organization has an action plan. Everyone thanks the auditor for the detailed work.

Then the report sits.

I have seen this happen more times than I care to count. An organization may appreciate an in-depth audit report and still not take the time to digest it, discuss the findings, or decide what needs to change. Another urgent issue takes over. Then another one follows. Before long, the audit has become a completed project instead of a tool for improving compliance.

This is what should happen after a proactive audit, whether it is completed by the organization’s own staff or an outside consultant. The organization has chosen to look closely at its own practices. How does it know whether that audit is improving compliance?

The findings need to be shared

The people who requested the audit should receive the results, and the findings should be discussed with the people who need to respond to them. That may include specific provider groups. I also recommend that I be part of those conversations when I conducted the audit. How findings are explained matters, and a direct discussion gives people a chance to ask questions, understand the concern, and share information that may not have come up earlier.

The wording in the audit as well as the shared message should be candid, but careful and factual. The goal is to explain what the audit found and why it matters, not to label people or make assumptions about intent. A useful conversation invites the organization to understand the finding and address it.

Understand what is behind the finding

Before deciding what to fix, the organization needs to understand why the issue is happening. I usually look at workflow, expectations, and training because they are often connected. If expectations are unclear, staff may not know what is required. If training does not address the actual work, people may continue following a process that produces the same problem.

Supervision also deserves careful attention. I do not want to reach a conclusion about supervisors without first speaking with them. I prefer to have an in-depth discussion with the supervisors involved, learn how the work is monitored, and understand what support or direction staff are receiving. That conversation gives me a stronger basis for discussing the findings and recommendations with leadership.

Sometimes the audit discussion also brings forward information that was not shared during the initial conversations. That is one reason organizations need to engage with the report instead of treating it as the final word. Questions and discussion can help clarify what is happening and what kind of response is likely to work.

Build the response together

An action plan should respond to the reason the problem is occurring. Education may be part of the answer, but it is not automatically the answer. The organization may need to clarify expectations, adjust a workflow, strengthen supervision, or make several changes together.

I expect the organization to be open to brainstorming how to fix the issue. The auditor can explain what the findings show and recommend ways to address them. Management can explain what is workable within the organization. Together, we can agree on an action that is specific enough to carry out and monitor.

We also need to assign accountability together. When I work with an organization, I do that with the management team involved in the audit. We identify who will make the change, who will oversee the work, and when we will check progress. If responsibility is left vague, it becomes easy for the action plan to wait while other priorities take over.

Check whether the change worked

Completing an action does not prove that compliance improved. A training session may have been held, a workflow may have been revised, or a new monitoring process may be in place. The organization still needs to look at the work again and see whether the finding has decreased or been corrected.

That follow-up might include reviewing another sample of records, checking whether staff are following the revised process, or asking supervisors what they are seeing. The organization should compare the follow-up results with the original findings. If the same issue continues, the response may need to change. If the finding has improved, that is something to recognize and celebrate. The people who did the work should see that their effort produced a result.

An audit should not end when the report is delivered. It should lead to discussion, a shared understanding of what is driving the finding, action with clear accountability, and a follow-up review that shows whether the work changed.

The question I want organizations to ask is simple: What did this audit change, and how do we know?