Use institutional preparation to understand what is in place and what still needs attention. IESG can support a structured internal review, with a working record of evidence, unresolved questions and actions assigned to the people able to address them.
Self-review gives the institution a basis for planning its own work. It helps distinguish existing practice from intended arrangements, and identifies whether the team can locate the evidence behind its statements.
The review records established practice, information gaps and unresolved questions. This gives the institution a reliable basis for its next action without treating an internal review as an official certification result.
Define the provision, sites, functions and period concerned. Record the relevant reference documents and the people who will contribute information. Where the institution has already completed a review, identify its date and the outstanding actions before deciding what further work is needed.
The support arrangement describes the depth of assistance. A brief workshop to organise a self-review differs from a sustained engagement examining records across several teams.
We explain the review scope to contributing staff and issue focused information requests, keeping preparation relevant to the questions being examined.
Discussions can help explain how a policy or process works, but recollection and a documented operating record have different evidential value. The review should retain the source and explain significant limitations.
A useful working record identifies the question, available evidence, responsible owner and the team's current understanding. It should also identify an item that has not been provided or a statement that still needs clarification.
The institution can then distinguish a documentation problem from an operating problem. The response may be to locate an existing record, improve how a process is carried out or make a management decision about provision.
An action plan should identify the issue, intended change, responsible person, resources, target date and evidence expected. A priority should reflect the effect of the issue on the institution and the dependencies between tasks.
Where an action requires a governing-body decision, additional resources or another organisation's permission, the plan should say so. Assigning the task to a coordinator does not give that person the authority to resolve it alone.
The review point asks whether the action was carried out and whether it addresses the issue. A revised policy can be part of that evidence, but it may need to be accompanied by records showing its use.
The institution maintains ownership of its management decisions and implementation. IESG can assist with the structure of the review, the action record and coordination of the agreed work.
We agree the review records with your institution: a review brief, evidence map, information-request schedule, internal findings record, action plan or follow-up note. Each records its preparation purpose and the evidence behind the observations.
An internal review does not determine an ICEQC finding or certification result. It should support accurate preparation and enable the institution to address matters within its own responsibility.
Optional in-depth assistance is described in the agreed scope. Its purchase does not replace the official process or establish that an institution conforms.
Tell us which provision is concerned, what review work has already taken place and where your team needs assistance. We can use that outline to define an appropriate starting point.