The phrase "audit outcome" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing the results or findings of an audit process, typically in a business or financial context.
Example: "The audit outcome revealed several areas for improvement in our financial reporting practices."
Alternatives: "audit results" or "audit findings".
Our experimental design allows us to examine the type and the honesty of messages that an individual chooses to send to other individuals regarding their own audit outcome and their own compliance behavior.
However, engagement partners lead the audit team and take the most important decisions, thus it is appropriate to control for their effect on the audit outcome (Gul et al. 2013).
And despite quality control mechanisms within audit firms and their local branches it is ever more important to understand the association that individuals have with the audit outcome (Gul et al. 2013), even if associations might be hard to be elucidated.
The accuracy following EPR implementation Audit outcome Average for the paper notes Average for the EPR Difference % Early warning scores correct 89 100 +11 % Fluid chart in correct 83 100 +17 % Fluid chart out correct 100 100 0 % Total balance correct 67100+2323.
The change in times to access the notes Audit outcome Average time for paper notes Average time for the EPR Difference Time to access the notes Up to 1 day 1 min Up to 24 hours Time to audit the notes 48 min 32 min 16 min Table 41 (abstract A949).
Change in the percentage of nursing tasks complete Audit Outcome Average for the paper notes Average for the EPR Difference % of risk assessments completed 77 77 0 % of care plans completed 10098−2%2 % of arterial line assessments completed 95100+5%5 % of CVC lines completed 100 100 0 % of tracheostomy forms completed 100 100 0 % shift checks complete 8197+1616 Table 40 (abstract A949).
Our results indicate that most individuals send accurate messages about their own audit outcomes and their own compliance behaviors.
We show that auditors' current regulatory accountabilities generally are in the form of penalties rather than rewards and primarily depend on audit outcomes rather than attributes of auditors' judgment processes.
We also observe a strong interaction between individuals' audit outcomes and their compliance behaviors, so that individuals who engaged in tax evasion and who were audited were more truthful in their communications than those whose tax evasion went undetected.
Further underscoring the implications of these findings for audit outcomes, our results suggest that if an auditor's request leads clients to provide a response that is biased towards client-supporting information, clients may be less likely to agree with an auditor's proposed income-decreasing adjustment.
This suggests consistent with Goodwin and Wu (2014) that individuals are more important for audit outcomes than audit firms or local audit offices.
