Audit methodology

1. Agree the scope

We define the website, public social-media accounts and any other material expressly included in the review. Only content that can be accessed, retrieved or supplied within that agreed scope is reviewed.

2. Discover and organise the content

Automated tools help identify relevant pages, claims and content so that larger sites can be reviewed systematically. Where Social Media Assurance is included, retrieval coverage is recorded as Complete, Partial, Client-supplied or Unavailable rather than assuming every item has been found.

3. Apply the review framework

Content is assessed against the guidance and regulatory source families relevant to the issue. Depending on the content, this can include healthcare advertising, prescription-only medicine restrictions, professional communications standards, evidence/substantiation, safety and patient-information requirements.

A Vericenta review focuses on the healthcare advertising, communications, patient-information and professional standards most relevant to the agreed public-facing scope. It is not intended to identify or interpret every law, regulation, contractual requirement or regulator expectation that could conceivably apply to a client's wider business.

4. Automated intelligence and candidate analysis

Structured automated intelligence is used to examine content consistently, identify candidate issues, compare content and classify claims across larger website estates. This supports efficient screening and prioritisation so professional review can focus on the findings most likely to matter.

See the Automated intelligence and professional review.

5. Professional review

Substantive clinical, regulatory and reviewer-routed findings are professionally reviewed before client issue. The reviewer refines, prioritises or removes candidate findings and applies clinical judgement where relevant, so the final report reflects professional review rather than automated output alone.

Automated spelling, grammar and page-health observations are kept separate from professionally reviewed healthcare findings so minor technical issues do not inflate the apparent clinical or regulatory risk.

6. Prioritise the findings

Findings are prioritised according to their practical importance. Higher-priority findings warrant more prompt attention; other findings are recommendations for improvement, clarification or substantiation. Good-practice observations may also be recorded where useful.

7. Produce the client report

The report explains what was reviewed, the material findings, why they matter and the recommended action. Suggested wording is advisory and is provided for the client to assess and implement in context. It is not a warranty that the wording will be accepted by a regulator, platform or third party.

8. What is outside the normal review

Unless expressly included in writing, the standard review does not constitute a legal opinion, regulatory filing review, CQC inspection, clinical-governance audit, patient-care assessment, consent-form audit, penetration test, cyber-security audit, formal accessibility audit, tax/financial review, employment review or comprehensive data-protection audit.

Non-public material, deleted or temporary content, private accounts, inaccessible paid advertising, offline campaigns, internal policies and content outside the agreed domain/account scope are also outside scope unless specifically supplied and accepted for review.

9. Review boundaries

• The review is dated and reflects the accessible content and guidance considered at that time.
• No review can guarantee that every possible issue has been identified.
• Absence of a finding does not mean that a claim, page, website or organisation has been certified compliant.
• Regulators, courts, platforms, insurers and other third parties make their own decisions.
• Guidance, evidence, platform access and website content can change after the review.
• Ongoing monitoring is scheduled, not continuous or real-time.

10. Client responsibility

The client remains responsible for the claims and content it publishes, the evidence and substantiation it holds, the accuracy of information supplied to Vericenta, its legal and regulatory obligations, and deciding whether and how to implement recommendations. A recommendation should be considered in the context of the client's full facts and should not be reused for materially different content or circumstances without further review.

11. Ongoing Assurance

Later monitoring cycles compare current accessible content with the established reviewed position. New or materially changed content and relevant outstanding findings are prioritised for review. Unchanged content may rely on the previous reviewed position until the broader refresh, subject to the limits of the service and any change in law, guidance or evidence.

12. Quality control and change management

Vericenta maintains versioned review rules, reviewer decision records, regression tests and audit evidence so material changes to the methodology can be identified and reviewed. The methodology is reviewed when guidance, regulation, technology or the service changes materially.