Since 2020, infection control has become part of everyday conversation in cleaning services, particularly in healthcare. What was once a somewhat hidden part of cleaning has been pushed into the spotlight, and rightly so. Since the beginning of time, cleaning teams have carried a huge amount of responsibility, often under pressure and scrutiny, and with the added pressure of cleaning becoming synonymous with ‘infection control’, the systems that are used to check and assure infection control have not always reflected the reality of the work being done. We, as an industry, need to ensure that everything at our disposal is being used effectively, where can we start with that? The most misused tool in infection control: auditing.  

Auditing: A Problem Area 

Auditing has become a problem area. In many organisations it has drifted into a tick-box exercise, producing scores that look reassuring but don’t stand up to closer examination. High results may satisfy reporting requirements, but they rarely lead to meaningful change. 100% scores in cleaning are not real, audits taking less than 30 seconds per room, are not good enough, reports without rectifications are completely futile. Audits were never meant to be comfortable; they were meant to be challenging. When everything scores well despite repeated issues on the ground, it becomes clear that the process is protecting the system rather than improving it. Over time, this false reassurance limits investment in training, discourages honest conversations, creates breakdown in relationships and inevitably weakens infection prevention culture. 

The tools being used to carry out audits are often part of the issue. Paper-based forms, legacy spreadsheets, or locally adapted checklists may feel familiar, but they are frequently inconsistent and poorly aligned with recognised standards. When the audit tool is weak, the findings are weak. Important risks can be missed, actions are not always followed through, and when questions are asked later, there is little defensible evidence such as videos or photos to rely on. More recently, some services have moved towards structured digital systems aligned to recognised standards, including platforms such as the BICSc Audit App. Used properly, these types of tools support consistency and transparency by embedding standards into the process and creating a clear evidence trail, for both cleaning standards and standards of efficacy, such as health and safety, documentation and the management of the cleaning service, rather than relying on memory or interpretation after the event. 

Visual Cleanliness is Not Enough 

Moreover, this common problem persists, many ‘audits’ focus almost entirely on what can be seen. Visual cleanliness is easy to judge, but it is a poor indicator of infection risk. A room can look immaculate and still present a problem if the cleaning process itself has not been effective. Too often, audits fail to consider how tasks are carried out: whether the correct chemicals are used, if they are diluted properly, whether contact times are achieved, or if tasks are sequenced in a way that reduces risk. Without looking at these details, audits end up measuring presentation rather than safety. 

Does the auditor really understand infection control? 

Who carries out the audit matters just as much as how it is done. An audit is only meaningful if the person completing it understands infection prevention and the cleaning methodologies they are assessing. They need to be trained, consistent, impartial and confident enough to record what they find. When audits are carried out by people who lack the knowledge or authority to challenge poor practice, the process becomes a formality. The paperwork is completed, the score is recorded, and nothing changes. 

For audits to genuinely support infection control, they need to be honest, structured, and grounded in how cleaning is really delivered. That means using tools that align with recognised standards, assessing how tasks are performed rather than how they look, and ensuring audits are carried out by people who are equipped to do the job properly. When auditing is approached in this way, it becomes what it was always meant to be: a practical tool for improvement for the safety of others, not a box to be ticked. 

About the author: 

Kelsey Hargreaves is the Technical Manager at BicSc. Kelsey, in addition to her role at BICSc, is a Youth Ambassador for Youth Employment UK.  She has experience in the cleaning industry over a range of challenging frontline positions within the NHS during the COVID pandemic. 

She brings extensive experience in site inspections, project management, and overcoming the issues faced in operational cleaning service and particularly training models.