At each health centre, 10% of the records audited at baseline were selected randomly and audited again one to two months later by the same auditor for the same calendar period.
The case also highlights the risk of an audit firm auditing a client whose officials are former auditors at the same firm.
The first comparison group was another area of the unit that would not have been visible to the auditors at the same time period during the audit.
The hand hygiene event rate in dispensers visible to auditors (3.75/dispenser/h) was significantly higher than in dispensers not visible to the auditors at the same time (1.48; p=0.001) and in the same dispensers during the week prior (1.07; p<0.001.07
Thus, we expect our empirical evidence to be inconsistent with null Hypothesis 1: In the pre-inspection period, clients of sanctioned auditors exhibit the same level of earnings quality as do clients of non-sanctioned auditors.
Specifically, to test Hypothesis 1, we check if auditees of sanctioned auditors exhibit the same level of earnings quality (i.e. report ordinary and bottom-line losses), as do auditees of non-sanctioned auditors in the pre-inspection period.
Similarly, to test Hypothesis 2, we determine if the clients of sanctioned auditors exhibit the same level of financial information quality (i.e. report ordinary and bottom-line losses) in the pre- and post-investigation periods.
Hence, we expect our empirical evidence to be inconsistent with null Hypothesis 2: Clients of sanctioned auditors exhibit the same level of earnings quality in the pre- and post-inspection period.
William Lin, Principal at Trident Capital Cyber, a $300m fund pointed out that "the role of CISO has bifurcated into managing risk akin to an auditor and at the same time, managing complex engineering and technology environments".
Why couldn't auditors do the same to Google?
That means that the auditor could accept wildly divergent values of the same asset in differing audits.
