Guide · checked October 2026

Audit criteria, standards and targets: what's the difference?

A criterion is an explicit, measurable statement of what good care looks like; the standard or target is the level of performance you expect against it, often a percentage of cases, which NICE says should aspire to 100% (or 0% for things that should never happen) unless there is a reason to set it lower.

Criteria

NICE's Principles for best practice in clinical audit (2002) defines criteria as explicit statements that define what is being measured, covering parts of care that can be measured objectively. Criteria can describe structure (what you need), process (what you do) or outcome (what you expect).

A good criterion names the population, the action and the time frame, so a data collector can answer it from the record without interpretation.

Standards and targets

NICE is candid that professions use the words differently. Its book uses "level of performance" instead of standard, and lists published definitions including the percentage of events that should comply with the criterion.

The HQIP and Royal College of Physicians handbook for local audit says that where 100% compliance is not possible or desirable, targets need to be set, and gives an example target of 90%. NICE's quality standards say they do not set achievement levels: they aspire to 100% (or 0% for things that should not happen) and leave the expected level to be defined locally.

NICE's 2002 book notes there was insufficient evidence on whether target levels are needed, and suggests benchmarking to avoid targets that are too low or unrealistically high.

Reporting against them

HQIP's Best practice guide says standards should be evidence-based and clearly referenced. Its reporting guide says that if you use red, amber and green ratings, green should be reserved for 100% compliance, and the thresholds should be agreed by the multidisciplinary team.

Common confusions

A guideline is not a criterion until it is written as something you can measure.
A target below 100% is not a lower standard of care if exceptions are legitimate and defined.
Green does not mean "good enough" in HQIP's scheme; it means 100%.

Where Oriel fits

Oriel includes a standards library describing, in its own words, what common standards cover and the checks audits typically make against them: for example IR(ME)R 2017, the Quality Standard for Imaging, ISO 15189, NICE NG5 medicines reconciliation and controlled drugs guidance. A pack can start from a standard and the report's standards section lists each criterion with its measure, target and achieved value.

Targets and wording are yours to set; Oriel does not decide what your standard should be. It is a pilot on synthetic data only.

Questions

Should every audit target be 100%?

NICE quality standards aspire to 100%, or 0% for things that should not happen, and leave the expected level to local definition; HQIP's physician handbook sets lower targets where 100% is not possible or desirable.

What are structure, process and outcome criteria?

In NICE's 2002 book, structure is what you need, process is what you do and outcome is what you expect to result.

Sources

Official pages, checked October 2026. Guidance changes, so check the current version before you rely on it.

General information for healthcare managers and clinical teams, checked October 2026. It is not legal, regulatory or clinical advice; follow the current official guidance and your organisation's own policies. No patient data is used in these examples. Oriel is a working prototype shown on a fictional demo hospital with synthetic data only. It is not a medical device and is not for clinical use. It drafts and flags for people to decide; it does not diagnose or change clinical records. A clinical safety case and information-governance approval come before any use with real patient data. Oriel is a working name.