Table 3 Review framework Research question Methods 1 Is the third party body affiliated or a member of the European Cooperation for Accreditation (EA) or the International Accreditation Forum (IAF)? Interview third party bodies Desk-based review of standards used View affiliation certificates Desk-based review of relevant back ground documents 2 Does the third party body accreditation provide an endorsement of a conformity assessment body’s competence, credibility, independence and integrity to carry out conformity assessment activities? Interview third party bodies Survey DAAs 3 Are third party body assessment reports available from the third party body to the Ministry (to provide feedback on ongoing performance of the DAAs)? Interview third party bodies Interview Ministry Survey DAAs 4 Does the third party body impose sanctions or consequences where a conformity is not meeting requirements of third party accreditation? Interview third party bodies Interview Ministry Survey DAAs (follow up interviews if necessary) 5 Have DAAs made changes to the way they operate as a result of third party accreditation? Interview third party bodies Survey DAAs (follow up interviews if necessary) 6 How effective are each of the third party bodies in performance managing poorly performing DAAs? Interview and gather documents from the Ministry Interview third party bodies 7 Is it appropriate that there are two third party bodies where there is inconsistency of standards? Literature scan Consider Commerce Commission requirements Scan other international third party accreditation bodies
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
Appendix 5 Survey form for DAAs Respondent information Please provide the following information about your organisation, to assist our analysis. Your name Your designation (job title/role) Name of your DAA Central Region’s Technical Advisory Services Limited Health and Disability Auditing New Zealand Limited HealthShare Limited Health Audit (NZ) Limited The DAA Group Limited Other (please clarify) Comment/clarification (optional) How long have you been accredited as a DAA? Less than 1 year 1-2 years More than 2 years