I was taught that an audit asks three key questions: 1. Do you have a system? 2. Is that system adequate to deliver safety management to the required (legal as a minimum) standard and deliver the necessary evidence? 3. Is it actually being followed? Question 2 is key, because you have to identify the deliverables in your organisation. For example if you have pressure systems, the management system has to be able to identify when these systems arrive and leave the company, assess whether they need to be on the statutory inspection list, get them on it and ensure that the necessary inspections get carried out. It also has to ensure that they are identified uniquely, that they are maintained, people are trained etc, etc, So I would suggest that you identify the systems that you need to have for the range of risks that your organisation has, and structure your findings around that. You can then use this as a basis for future audits. The inspection element of the process arises at item 3, as a check that what you say you do, in writing, actually translates to what you do in practice. I, too, have experienced external audits of very variable quality. Mostly because they have used a 'one size fits all' questionnaire, which can miss enormous chunks of safety management.

Morning Dave, The Audit system I was trained on was RoSPA QSA. This is based around HSG65 with content drawn from 18000 and 14000 as well. QSA has around 1800 questions, and takes 80 hours of auditing time, for presentation it uses a combination of written and graphical feedback, and a good enough score allows for an award. It is internal, but every two years auditers have to have an audit moderated by RoSPA to keep their certificate. Mine has lapsed, but one of my team has hers so we use QSA as a reality check on our own system. The key phrase to describe audit is a systematic, independent evaluation of the management system in question, so you neeed to look first at the reasons why managers think they have to do stuff (e.g. SSOWs, RAs etc); in other words the dicumentation. Then you look at whether their efforts, if any, are having any effect at the coalface. Because QSA is so intensive, we have developed our own system. Every policy we produce has a standard written for it; all this is is a summary of all the instructions contained in the policy, e.g. 'There is a competent person responsible for risk assessment in the workplace'. The audit just turns these statements into questions; 'Is there a competent person responsible for RA in the workplace?' Simple really, John

Hi Dave, You could consider giving a score of maybe 1-3 and use this as a priority system as to what timescale should any deffeciency be addressed, good in practice but depends also on costs being allocated to rectify if it's required on large scale (cost) All the best Tony

Hi, Which standards/systems are being apply by the organization?

Hi, It is utmost important to have a trained auditor. Recall the first time, when i started learning audit, the newbie had no ideas on what to observe, comments and eventually raise CAR/PAR. For an organization with 8 sites, If time permitted, split the job between the 2 auditors. i would recommend each plants implement workplace inspection and submit the report to the auditor. Both the auditors shall assessed periodically or visit the site if inspection data show any abnormality or concerns. My 2 cents, Regards, Lo

Dave, Good idea to attend a lead auditor course, it will raise you understand of auditing against the criteria of 18001, 14001 etc. As mentioned above you need to identify what you want to audit and the criteria that you are going to audit against (18001, HSG 65, 14001 etc). With regards to remaining independent it can be difficult when you are auditing your own management system, what about setting up an 'independent' internal audit team using employees from other departments. Could you send them on an internal auditor course? P