Appendix 2: DAA performance indicators – 2011 and 2014 The following table sets out the DAA performance indicators used in the 2011 evaluation and those provided by the Ministry for 2014 evaluation. Table 9 DAA performance indicators 2011 evaluation Provided for 2014 evaluation Equivalent Years provided: 2009, 2010, 2011 Year provided 2013/14 2011 indicator 1 The audit team meets the requirements for the audit 1.1 The audit team met the requirements for the audit (audit 1 team membership) 2 The required fields of the audit report are completed 1.1a A minimum of 50% of the audit team were NOT involved in previous audit 3 The audit report did not require re-submission 1.1b The peer reviewer was independent of the audit team 4 Evidence was triangulated 1.2 For multi-site sampling, the Ministry agreed the sampling plan 5 Evidence included a consumer interview and/or relative 1.3 Interviews included at least one medical practitioner (ARC) interview 6 Terminology was explicit 1.4 Critical risks were reported to the Ministry within 24 hours in writing 7 Standards statements match criterion 1.5 The audit summary for publication was accurate and written in plain English 8 Evidence matched level of attainment awarded 1.6 The audit summary did not require amendment by the DAA 9 Evidence matched risk ratings 1.7 All partial attainments and unattained criteria from the
Appendix 2: DAA performance indicators – 2011 and 2014 The following table sets out the DAA performance indicators used in the 2011 evaluation and those provided by the Ministry for 2014 evaluation. Table 9 DAA performance indicators 2011 evaluation Years provided: 2009, 2010, 2011 Provided for 2014 evaluation Year provided 2013/14 Equivalent 2011 indicator 1 The audit team meets the requirements for the audit 1.1 The audit team met the requirements for the audit (audit team membership) 1 2 The required fields of the audit report are completed 1.1a A minimum of 50% of the audit team were NOT involved in previous audit 3 The audit report did not require re-submission 1.1b The peer reviewer was independent of the audit team 4 Evidence was triangulated 1.2 For multi-site sampling, the Ministry agreed the sampling plan 5 Evidence included a consumer interview and/or relative interview 1.3 Interviews included at least one medical practitioner (ARC) 6 Terminology was explicit 1.4 Critical risks were reported to the Ministry within 24 hours in writing 7 Standards statements match criterion 1.5 The audit summary for publication was accurate and written in plain English 8 Evidence matched level of attainment awarded 1.6 The audit summary did not require amendment by the DAA 9 Evidence matched risk ratings 1.7 All partial attainments and unattained criteria from the
evaluation-of-third-party-accreditation-final.docx