Re-audit plan
Confirm dates, sample, method and comparators.
Baseline versus re-audit comparison
Baseline values are taken from the current dataset. Re-audit values populate after the next cycle.
| Criterion | Baseline | Re-audit | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|
| Board round occurred as scheduled or reason for non-occurrence was documented. | 83% | — | 90% |
| Relevant MDT members were involved or available according to patient needs. | 80.8% | — | 90% |
| Criteria-to-reside status was reviewed and documented where relevant. | 75.5% | — | 90% |
| Expected discharge date was reviewed or updated. | 81.1% | — | 90% |
| Discharge pathway was assigned where relevant. | 78.8% | — | 90% |
| Main barrier to progress or discharge was documented. | 86.3% | — | 90% |
| Action owner was documented. | 75.9% | — | 90% |
| Escalation was completed where required by local policy. | 73.6% | — | 90% |
| Documentation was clear enough for another clinician, ward leader or discharge coordinator to understand the plan, barrier, owner and next action. | 76.5% | — | 90% |
Sustainability review
Has board round improvement been maintained?
Updated outputs
Refresh reports and ARCP evidence after re-audit.
Once re-audit data is collected, regenerate the Word audit report, executive summary, PowerPoint presentation, Excel workbook and ARCP evidence summary from the Export centre.
Outputs draw on the current project configuration, findings and improvement plan, so baseline versus re-audit comparison and trend data update automatically.