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. 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. Review cycles vary from annual to eight years, depending on risk.
In 2025’s first quarter, satisfaction from firms with the management of the visit process (96%) remained high and quality of interaction with the Quality Assurance team (96%) reflected very well on how well the team carried out the reviews.
We can conclude from the consistency of the average ratings over the last three years that the relationship between reviewers and the firms is showing considerable stability
The feedback doesn’t just capture the visit itself, it also seeks feedback of the whole process, including visit scheduling. From our main report, ‘firms unequivocally confirm that there is very little room for improvement for the QAD team regarding the amount of advance notice given to firms – with those responding to the survey indicating that this part of the process is near flawless.’
It was a very humbling experience in that we had gaps in our system. But handled with such incredible understanding and support. This is why ICAEW is the gold standard.
I would like more of these reviews.
I am very grateful for the positive and constructive approach, the full understanding shown by the reviewer and pragmatic work process. We have always found this to be the case with QAD visits and this visit in question was exceptional only in that it was even more pragmatic and helpful in an area where there is generally a lack of guidance. All of the reviewer’s suggestions were sensible, relevant and practical.
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.
