Adams N H
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Technical Services Branch, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Qual Assur. 1999 Oct-Dec;7(4):195-200. doi: 10.1080/105294199750061308.
On-site audits, conducted by technical and quality assurance (QA) experts at the data-gathering location, are the core of an effective QA program. However, inadequate resources for such audits are the bane of a QA program and, frequently, the proposed solution is to send only one auditor to the study site. There are several reasons why audits should be performed by more than one person: 1.
Audits of EPA projects frequently involve hazardous chemicals or other environmental hazards. They also often involve working after normal work hours in remote locations with dangerous equipment. It is unsafe to work alone under such conditions. 2. Skills: Many of EPA's projects are multidisciplinary, involving multiple measurements systems, several environmental media, and complex automated data collection and analysis systems. It is unlikely that one auditor would have the requisite skills to assess all of these operations. 3. Separateness: Two auditors can provide two (sometimes differing) perspectives on problems encountered during an audit. Two auditors can provide complementary expertise and work experience. Two auditors can provide twice the surveillance power. 4. Support: The operations that need to be assessed are sometimes in different parts of a site, requiring two auditing devices or considerable commuting time. Also, auditors are occasionally diverted by managers wishing to show their best efforts rather than the whole operation; if two auditors are on-site, one can interview managers while the other talks with technical staff. If there is a dispute, one auditor can support the other in verifying observations. 5. Savings: Although sending one auditor is perceived to be a cost-saving measure, it may be more economical to send two auditors. Time on site (lodging, food) is decreased, more of the project is assessed in one visit, less pre-audit training is required, and report preparation is accelerated. In summary, sending more than one auditor on a field audit is smarter, safer and more effective, and can be less expensive in the long run.
由技术和质量保证（QA）专家在数据收集地点进行的现场审核是有效QA计划的核心。然而，此类审核资源不足是QA计划的祸根，而且通常提出的解决方案是只派一名审核员前往研究地点。审核应由多人进行有几个原因：1.
对美国环境保护局（EPA）项目的审核经常涉及危险化学品或其他环境危害。它们还常常涉及在偏远地点的正常工作时间之后使用危险设备工作。在这种情况下独自工作不安全。2.技能：EPA的许多项目是多学科的，涉及多个测量系统、几种环境介质以及复杂的自动数据收集和分析系统。一名审核员不太可能具备评估所有这些操作所需的技能。3.独立性：两名审核员可以对审核期间遇到的问题提供两种（有时不同的）观点。两名审核员可以提供互补的专业知识和工作经验。两名审核员可以提供两倍的监督力度。4.支持：需要评估的操作有时在场地的不同区域，需要两台审核设备或大量通勤时间。此外，审核员偶尔会被希望展示其最佳努力而非整个操作的管理人员转移注意力；如果有两名审核员在现场，一名可以与管理人员面谈，而另一名与技术人员交谈。如果存在争议，一名审核员可以支持另一名审核员核实观察结果。5.节省：虽然派一名审核员被认为是一种节省成本的措施，但派两名审核员可能更经济。现场时间（住宿、餐饮）减少，一次访问可以评估更多项目，所需的审核前培训更少，报告准备加快。总之，在现场审核中派多名审核员更明智、更安全、更有效，从长远来看成本可能更低。
