As a world-leading improvement regulator, we supervise and monitor over 12,000 ICAEW firms and insolvency practitioners (IPs), holding them, and all ICAEW members and students, to the high standards of competency and conduct in the profession. Find out what our firms thought of the monitoring review process from our latest survey.
Monitoring is carried out by the Quality Assurance Department (QAD), which is part of the Professional Standards Department (PSD). PSD is responsible for carrying out ICAEW's regulatory and conduct roles. These roles are separated from ICAEW’s other activities through internal governance so that we can monitor, support or take steps to ensure change if standards are not met.
After each monitoring review, firms and IPs are asked to complete an anonymous survey, providing feedback on the review process, the quality of interaction and the support provided. The infographic illustrates the results of the responses.
These survey responses are collated and analysed by an independent research agency and we receive a quarterly and annual overview report which we use to support the continuous improvement of our monitoring processes and procedures.
Monitoring reviews ensure and reassure firms/IPs they are meeting the expected requirements of the standards, regulations and the ICAEW Code of Ethics. In turn, we take action where the requirements are not met.
Latest Quality Assurance monitoring feedback
Our proactive monitoring approach ensures we review all our firms on a risk-based cycle, varying from annual visits to every eight years. The frequency with which we review our firms is determined by their risk profile which includes annual return data, complaints information and external regulatory intelligence.
This quarter the feedback was again very positive with improvements noted on the “interaction” of the reviewer with the firms.
- 96% satisfaction with QAD’s management of the visit process
- 98% satisfaction with firms’ quality of interaction with QAD staff
A 37% response rate – slightly down on Q2 but the number of actual surveys completed in Q3 was higher at 175.
In terms of specific performance ratings (firms scoring either 9 out of 10 or 10 out of 10) these continue to rate well.
- 87% technical competence
- 81% constructive
- 83% good business understanding
- 90% courteous
- 89% patient
It is interesting to note that more sole practitioners completed the survey this quarter (28% v 18% Q2) and more C- and D-graded firms were in the population contacted for feedback. An average of 86% satisfaction across the performance metrics plus overall satisfaction rates of 96% (management of the process) and 98% (quality of interaction) demonstrate that firms react well to our visit approach.
One trend to note is how firms are answering Question 8 of the survey: “Did the reviewer explain the closing meeting notes and possible underlying causes of any issues?”. We’re seeing an improvement in positive responses to this question when compared to 2024 – 93% in 2024 and currently tracking at 97%.
This was the most professional and helpful QAD visit we have experienced. The reviewer was the consummate professional and engaged with us with just the right level of challenge and constructive feedback that we found extremely useful.
I was very impressed with the reviewer. Calm, clear, to the point with the queries and very helpful with links to resources.
Monitoring visits are an important part of our commitment to fulfil ICAEW's statutory responsibilities and commitments to oversight regulators. Survey feedback from visits is important to us in our mission to continuously improve our processes and role as an improvement regulator.
Archive
View previous survey results.
