Quality and Safety Audit Review in Human Identification – PgDFO Insights

Introduction and Purpose

Quality assurance and safety governance are fundamental to forensic odontology practice in the UK. Dental identification evidence is routinely relied upon by police forces, coroners, and courts, and therefore must be produced within a robust quality framework that ensures accuracy, reliability, transparency, and legal defensibility.

This Knowledge Providing Task requires learners to review a sample quality and safety audit report relating to forensic dental identification work. Learners must identify strengths, non-conformities, risks, and opportunities for improvement in relationto how dental records and radiographs are examined, how identification decisions are reached, and how forensic findings are documented.

The task mirrors the type of audit scrutiny applied by:

• The Forensic Science Regulator
• Internal quality assurance teams
• Police forensic governance units

The focus is on improving real forensic practice, not on theoretical quality models.

Professional Practice Context

You are a forensic odontologist working within a UK forensic services provider that supports:

• Criminal investigations
• Coroner-led death investigations
• Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) operations

Your organisation has recently undergone a quality and safety audit following a review of forensic identification case files involving dental evidence. You have been asked to examine a section of the audit report and provide professional feedback to improve compliance, reliability, and operational safety.

Sample Quality / Safety Audit Report (Extract for Review)

Audit Type: Internal Quality and Compliance Audit
Audit Scope: Forensic Dental Identification Casework
Audit Period: Previous 12 months
Auditing Frameworks Applied:

• Forensic Science Regulator’s Codes of Practice and Conduct
• Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021
• Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
• Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR)
• Data Protection Act 2018 (UK GDPR)

Audit Findings – Dental Records and Radiograph Handling

• Ante-mortem dental records were generally obtained through appropriate police channels
• In several cases, radiographs were received in low resolution without documented quality assessment
• Not all case files recorded the date of radiograph acquisition
• Storage of dental images varied between secure systems and local encrypted drives

Audit Risk Rating: Medium

Audit Findings – Identification Methodology

• Tooth-by-tooth comparison was documented in most cases
• Inconsistent terminology was used to describe identification outcomes (e.g. “confirmed”, “matched”, “positive”)
• Some reports lacked explicit explanation of unexplained discrepancies
• Peer review was not consistently recorded

Audit Risk Rating: Medium to High

Audit Findings – Documentation and Reporting

• Reports followed a general structure but varied in depth
• Separation between factual observations and professional opinion was unclear in some reports
• Limitations and uncertainty were not always documented explicitly
• Amendments to reports were not consistently logged

Audit Risk Rating: High

Audit Findings – Legal and Regulatory Compliance

• Awareness of CPIA disclosure obligations was evident
• Retention of working notes was inconsistent across cases
• Data protection policies were in place but not always referenced in reports
• Declarations of compliance with Forensic Science Regulator standards weremissing in several files

Audit Risk Rating: Medium

Learner Review Focus Areas

Learners must examine the audit findings in relation to daily forensic odontology practice, focusing on how quality and safety issues affect:

• Accuracy of human identification
• Reliability of dental and radiographic evidence
• Legal defensibility of conclusions
• Ethical and professional accountability

Guided Audit Review Questions

Dental Records and Radiographs

• What risks do low-quality or undocumented radiographs pose to accurate human identification?
• How should radiographic quality and limitations be recorded to meet UK forensic standards?
• What improvements would you recommend for secure handling and storage of dental images?

Identification Techniques and Reliability

• How does inconsistent terminology undermine the reliability of identification conclusions?
• What documentation should be present to justify identification decisions?
• How should unexplained discrepancies be recorded and managed in line with professional guidance?

Documentation and Reporting Quality

• Why is clear separation between fact and opinion critical in forensic dental reports?
• What systems should be in place to record amendments and corrections?
• How can report structure be standardised without reducing professional judgement?

Legal and Regulatory Compliance

• How do CPIA requirements influence retention of notes and draft materials?
• What risks arise when compliance statements are missing from reports?
• How should data protection responsibilities be demonstrated within forensic documentation?

Improvement Planning and Risk Reduction

Learners are required to identify practical, achievable improvements, such as:

• Introduction of standardised identification terminology
• Mandatory radiographic quality assessment checklists
• Peer review recording procedures
• Version control and audit trails for reports
• Enhanced training on UK forensic regulatory compliance

Improvements should be operational, not theoretical.

Competency and Workplace Relevance

This task assesses learners’ ability to

• Critically review forensic quality systems
• Identify risks affecting identification accuracy
• Apply UK forensic governance requirements
• Improve documentation and safety practices
• Demonstrate Level 7 professional accountability

The task reflects real inspection and audit scenarios encountered by forensic odontologists in the UK.

Learner Task

Learners must:

• Review the provided audit extract
• Identify key quality and safety weaknesses
• Explain how each weakness could affect forensic identification outcomes
• Propose practical improvements aligned with UK law and regulation
• Write from the perspective of a forensic odontologist contributing to service improvement

Submission Guidelines

• Format: Quality audit review and improvement report
• Indicative Length: 3,000–4,000 words
• Writing Style: Professional, vocational, practice-focused
• References: UK legislation, regulatory standards, and professional guidance only
• Assessment Emphasis:
  • Applied quality assurance understanding
  • Risk identification and mitigation
  • Legal and regulatory awareness
  • Documentation improvement