Indicator 32 — Continuous improvement
You must implement improvement measures drawn from the analysis of the feedback and complaints collected, and demonstrate that this quality loop works over time.
Applies to: OF · CFA · VAE · CBC
What the auditor actually checks
Indicator 32 closes the framework and criterion 7: it verifies that the collected feedback (indicator 30) and handled complaints (indicator 31) produce real change. It is the proof-by-action indicator: the auditor does not want a quality statement of intent, they want to follow the full thread of at least one improvement:
- The source: a survey verbatim, a falling average, a complaint, a funder's remark, an internal finding.
- The analysis: why this point is a problem, which cause was identified.
- The action: what was changed — a rebuilt deck, an adjusted duration, a new format, a change of room or tool.
- The verification: the effect measured on subsequent sessions (the score rises, no further remark on that point).
At a new entrant's initial audit, the reading guide's accommodation applies: with no session history, you present the planned system (a ready improvement plan, a defined circuit). Real implementation is checked at the surveillance audit — hence the importance of making the plan live from your first sessions.
Achieving compliance, step by step
1. Create your continuous improvement plan
A single table: number, date, source (questionnaire, complaint, watch, internal audit), finding, decided action, owner, deadline, status, observed effect. It is criterion 7's central document — the auditor will ask for it within the first five minutes on this indicator.
2. Feed it at a defined rhythm
Set a quarterly review (or after each session while starting up): re-read the indicator 30 compilations and the indicator 31 register, open a row for each significant point. Three to six rows a year suffice for a small structure — what matters is that they are real and followed through to the "effect" column.
3. Close the loops
A row forever "in progress" is worth nothing. Date the closures and note the effect: "logistics score up from 3.6 to 4.4 over the next two sessions". That kind of wording turns an administrative table into proof of effectiveness.
4. Tie the whole of criterion 7 together
Before the audit, verify the cross-traceability: every improvement must trace back to its source (a specific questionnaire, a numbered complaint), and your published results (indicator 2) must reflect the claimed progress.
Field advice
The auditor often picks a row of your plan themselves and walks the thread back to the source questionnaire. So prepare two or three complete, impeccable loops rather than a twenty-row approximate table. And think beyond questionnaires: an improvement born from your watch (indicators 23-25) or a well-handled incident shows a quality system that breathes.
The evidence the auditor expects
- P.1Continuous improvement plan kept up to date (source, finding, action, owner, deadline, effect)
- P.2Questionnaire compilations and complaints register from which the actions derive
- P.3Examples of complete loops: verbatim or complaint → analysis → action → measured effect
- P.4Summaries of periodic quality reviews (quarterly or post-session)
- P.5Successive versions of a deck or programme changed after feedback
- P.6For a new entrant: a formalised, ready-to-use system (structured blank plan, review procedure)
Common mistakes in audits
- Presenting a declarative quality policy with no concrete traced action
- Keeping an improvement plan where no row is ever closed or measured
- Being unable to trace improvement actions back to their source (questionnaire, complaint)
- Creating the whole table the week of the audit, with dates inconsistent with the sessions
- Ignoring the other improvement sources: watch, incidents, funders' remarks, internal audits
FAQ — indicator 32
+How do you pass indicator 32 at the initial audit with no history?
The new-entrant accommodation applies: present your structured improvement plan, the review procedure and the planned link with questionnaires and complaints. Real application is verified at the surveillance audit, around 18 months in.
+How many improvement actions are needed per year?
No quota exists. For a small structure, three to six real, documented loops a year — at least one followed through to a measured effect — convince far more than a bulky but hollow table.
+What is the auditor's typical question on continuous improvement?
"Show me a recent improvement and where it came from." They often pick a row of your plan and walk back to the source questionnaire or complaint. Prepare two or three complete, consistent threads.