In a small practice, it can be difficult to see why you should be required to do formal reviews at all. Whilst in larger practices they can become meaningless by repetition. Even where they are being used with a degree of thought and diligence we often see staff wasting their time on re-checking old information, or IPs failing to make use of the very powerful information tool that their staff have spent valuable time producing.
We have noted that the regulators appear to see 6 month reviews as the holy grail of case progression at the moment. Although regular reviews of this kind can result in some improvement, we try to encourage our IPs to set up their review programme so that they are more suited to the case type and stage.
For example, much of the review work we see in practices involves checking and re-checking the basic set-up of the case. For this reason, we recommend a 1 month case review in most case types. This is an opportunity for you to check on the validity of your appointment, ensure that the bond has been obtained, check the set up on your case management system, including diary entries, and verify that any initial notices and meetings have been properly issued or held. In administrations, you could even try to produce your proposals for this review – they are supposed to be proposals after all, not statements of historical fact. Once the basics have been checked, you can eliminate the need to consider them from future reviews and save you and your staff from the more tedious part of the job.
After that, the requirements start to vary between case types. In administrations a three month review is a good idea to help you focus on closure of the case before any 6 month progress report becomes due. In IVAs and CVAs, then provided contributions are coming in on time, a review after around 10 or 11 months is more useful. This ties in with the typical requirement for an annual income and expenditure review and it allows you to ensure that the required information is obtained in good time to produce the annual report to creditors. In other case types, 6 monthly reviews are probably appropriate.
Whenever you carry out the review it should combine control with guidance. You need your staff to confirm that certain work has been completed while also providing assistance in identifying further action. Leave space on your review forms for comment. That way you can instruct staff on any action you want them to take and set targets for them to meet. They in turn can record when that action has been carried out and report back to you on the result. If you follow this process you will find that instead of repeating items from one review to the next the case will progress.
Finally, don’t see the reviews as a periodic chore. If you let them stand in isolation until the next review comes around they will stagnate and become repetitive. Instead, try to follow up on reviews and challenge staff not only to complete the items on that review but also to clear any subsequent issues that arise from the work you identify. Some practices that started out with routine reviews on a rota have now adopted a more flexible system where staff invariably get the case closed before the next review, let alone the next annual report, meeting or bond renewal requirement.
Only a compliance outfit could see reviews as fun, but you could find significant benefits from encouraging a more positive attitude to them in your own practice.
