Search results

In crafting Auditing Standard No.3 (AS3), a primary objective of the PCAOB was to reduce auditors' exposure to litigation by raising the standard of care for audit documentation. We examine whether the increased documentation requirements of AS3 affect legal professionals' perceptions of audit quality and auditor responsibility in the event of an audit failure. Our experiment consists of a 3 × 2 between-participants design with law students serving as proxies for legal professionals. The results of our experiment indicate that when an audit procedure, namely the investigation of inconsistent evidence, is not required to be documented, legal professionals perceive the performance of the work itself but not its documentation to significantly increase audit quality and reduce the auditor's responsibility for an audit failure. When documentation of the procedure is required, as per AS3, legal professionals perceive enhanced audit quality and reduced auditor responsibility only if the performance of the work is documented.

This paper aims to examine the perceptions of auditor roles on the workpaper review process in current audit practice. Specifically, the paper investigates how an auditor’s defined role leads to perceived differences in what initiates the workpaper review process, the preferred methods for performing reviews and the stylization or framing of communicated review comments.

A survey was administered in which practicing auditors were asked about workpaper review process prompts, methods and preferences. The survey was completed by 215 auditors from each of the Big 4 accounting firms and one additional international firm. The final data set consists of quantitative and qualitative responses from 25 audit partners, 33 senior managers, 30 managers, 75 in-charge auditors/seniors and 52 staff auditors.

Findings indicate reviewers and preparers differ in their perceptions of the review process based on their defined roles. First, reviewers and preparers differ in their perspectives on which factors initiate the review process. Second, the majority of reviewers and preparers prefer face-to-face communication when discussing review notes. Reviewers, however, are more likely to believe the face-to-face method is an effective way to discuss review notes and to facilitate learning, whereas preparers prefer the method primarily because it reduces back-and-forth communication. Finally, reviewers believe they predominantly provide conclusion-based review notes, whereas preparers perceive review notes as having both conclusion- and documentation-based messages.

This paper advances the academic literature by providing a unique perspective on the review process. Instead of investigating a single staff level, it examines the workpaper review process on a broader scale. By obtaining views from professionals across all levels, this work intends to inspire future research directed at reconciling differences and filling gaps in the review process literature. The finding that reviewers and preparers engage in role conformity that leads to incongruent perceptions of the review process should encourage the consideration of mechanisms, with the potential to be tested experimentally, by which to reconcile the incongruities.

Results support recent regulator concerns that there are breakdowns in the workpaper review process, and the findings provide some insight into why these breakdowns are occurring. Incongruent perceptions of review process characteristics may be the drivers of these identified regulatory concerns.

This is the first study to examine current workpaper review processes at the largest accounting firms from the perspective of both preparers and reviewers. From this unique data set, one key interpretation of the findings is that workpaper preparers do not appear to recognize a primary goal of the review process: to ensure that subordinates receive appropriate coaching, learning and development. However, workpaper reviewers do, in fact, attempt to support preparers and work to create a supportive team environment.

ISO 9000 should help an organization establish a new perspective for auditing; particularly with audit administration. Provides potentially new concepts to consider in administering the audit programme. Principal entities within the audit programme are the: audit programme administrator; audit administrator (or the auditor); and the auditee. Prior to ISO 9000, the administration of the audit process was often single‐threaded, typically applied to a single programme, initiative, application, or interest area. With ISO 9000, the audit process is recognized as organizational in nature, integrated with other key validation methods, to help evaluate and determine the effectiveness of the quality system across the organization. Argues that, in its implementation, ISO 9000 rollout within the organization should introduce new concepts, techniques, tasks, and process improvements that will help the quality of the organization, advance the audit process, and be complementary to the organization’s total quality management practices.

The quality of asthma care may be affected if asthma management is overlooked, thus needing frequent clinical audits to identify areas for improvement. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the quality of the process (e.g. documentation of asthma-specific information), the structure (e.g. availability of resources) and the outcome (e.g. proportion of patients prescribed with asthma medications) at a university-based primary care clinic. The associated clinical factors for non-documentation of asthma control at the last visit were also examined.

This retrospective study involved auditing medical records and the pharmacy data system of 433 adult patients with asthma to evaluate 18 quality indicators. The standard target for the indicators of process and structure was 80 percent and the standard target for the indicators of outcome was 100 percent.

All the indicators failed to reach the standard targets. Documentation of asthma-specific information and availability of resources were deficient. The non-documentation of asthma control was significantly associated with presence of acute complaint(s) unrelated to asthma, presence of other issues and number of the documented parameters for asthma control. Although the prescription rates of inhaled reliever and preventer were substandard, they were reasonably high compared to the targets.

In this study, evaluation of the quality of care was limited by absence of asthma register, use of paper-based medical records and restricted practice capacity. Besides, the asthma-specific assessments and management were only audited at one particular time. Furthermore, the findings of this study could not be generalised to other settings that used other methods of record keeping such as patient-held cards and electronic medical records. Future studies should sample asthma patients from a register, evaluate more reliable quality indicators (e.g. over-prescription of short-acting β-2 agonist and underuse of inhaled corticosteroid) and assess asthma management over a duration of time.

This study provides quality information on all aspects of asthma care (process, structure and outcome) which can be a basis for clinical improvement. It is hoped that the study could assist the stakeholders to plan strategies for improvement of the asthma care. A more strategic and reliable system of documentation is needed, such as the use of a simple template or structured form, which should not jeopardise the provision of personalised and comprehensive care. With complete documentation, thorough investigational audits can be continuously performed to determine the quality of asthma care.

This study could provide useful findings to guide healthcare providers in developing a more strategic model of asthma care that can ensure asthma patients to receive a personalised, comprehensive, holistic and continuous care. Through this approach, their physical and psychosocial well-being can be optimised.

Even though our healthcare has advanced, the quality of asthma care is still suboptimal which requires further improvement. However, it could be considered assuring due to high outcome levels of asthma care despite having limited resources and practice capacity.

This paper aims to develop understanding of how the pursuit of practice change in auditing, especially in relation to audit methodologies, is conveyed, presented, reflected in and enabled (or hindered) through discursive, textual constructions by audit firms.

The paper uses an extensive series of interviews with audit practitioners, educators and regulators and a textual study of the content, concordances and narratives contained in two key audit methodological texts published by KPMG, one of the Big Four accounting firms.

Major discursive shifts in audit methodologies are identified over the last decade, with the dominant audit discourse switching from one of “business value” to one of “audit quality”. Such shifts are analysed in terms of developments in the wider, organisational field and discursive (re)constructions of audit at the level of the audit firm.

The identified shifts in auditing discourse are important in a number of respects. They demonstrate the significance of discursive elements of audit practice, contradicting influential prior claims that methodological discussions and developments in audit over the last decade had focused consistently on notions of “audit quality”. Methodologically, they demonstrate the importance and opportunities for knowledge development available by combining institutional, field‐wide analysis with a detailed discursive study of individual interviews and texts.