From Finding to Fix: Corrective Actions That Write Themselves

Today we're closing the loop between finding a problem and fixing it. Every violation can now carry a corrective action, and your team never has to write the same one twice.

Think about what happens after an audit flags something. Somebody on your QA team reads the violation, decides the agent needs a disclosure refresher, and types it out: what the agent has to do, who owns it, when it's due, whether anyone has to sign off. Then they do it again on the next violation. And the one after that. By Thursday there are four slightly different versions of the same disclosure refresher floating around, assigned to three different people, with due dates that made sense to whoever happened to pick them. The finding was consistent. The fix wasn't.

That changes today.

The fix, already written

There's a new page in your Comply menu: Corrective Actions. It's where an admin builds the library everyone else pulls from.

A template is a corrective action you have already thought through, saved under a name your team will recognize in a dropdown. "Disclosure refresher." "Recording consent coaching." "Call monitoring, two weeks." The thinking happens once, in a quiet moment, by the person best qualified to do it. Everyone else just picks it.

Templates archive, they never delete. Retire one and it stops being offered to reviewers, while the corrective actions already created from it carry on untouched, and you can restore it whenever you want. Your library gets to evolve without rewriting history.

What a template carries

Open the editor and you get three groups, in the order you actually think about them.

What the fix says. A name for the picker, the action itself, and a description with room for the details that matter: what needs to happen, and how anyone will know that it did.

What it defaults to. The type (Training, Coaching, Monitoring, Process Change, or Other), who owns it (the agent, the manager, or both), how many days out the due date should land, and whether the action requires verification before it can close.

When to suggest it. This is the part that turns a list into an assistant. You can tag a template with the severities it's meant for, the compliance sections it belongs to, and even the specific questions. Leave the filters empty and the template is simply always available. Fill them in and something better happens, which brings us to the next part.

Suggested, not just stored

A template library is only useful if the right template is easy to find, and "scroll through forty of them" is not a workflow.

So when a reviewer opens the Add corrective action sheet, there's a Template picker at the top, and it already knows what it's looking at. Templates whose filters match this violation, its severity, its section, its question, are grouped under Suggested at the top of the list. Everything else sits under All templates. If nothing matches, you get a plain list and no false confidence.

Pick one and the fields below fill in: the action, the description, the type, the assignee, and a due date calculated from the offset you set. Then, and this is the important part, everything stays editable. A template is a starting point, not a straitjacket. Change the wording, push the due date out a week, reassign it, and submit. Nothing is locked just because you started from a template.

The picker shows up when you're editing an existing corrective action too, so a reviewer who started from scratch can switch to a template later without retyping a thing.

Two places to reach for it

Corrective actions live in both of the places you actually work.

In the Violation Review flow, the guided queue you step through violation by violation, the corrective action card sits right there alongside Confirm, Reverse, and Skip. Decide the violation stands, attach the fix, move on. It's part of the same pass, not a second errand for later.

On Audit Details, every violation on the Violations tab now carries its own corrective action section, directly under the evidence that triggered it. If you're reading an audit rather than working a queue, you don't have to go anywhere else to act on what you find. The same is true on the audit pages you reach from a customer record.

QA reviewers and agency admins can add, edit, and close actions in both places. Managers can see them and nothing more. The agent portal is unchanged.

From pending to closed

A violation carries exactly one corrective action. Not an array, not a pile, not a growing list nobody prunes. One problem, one fix, one thing to track.

That action moves from Pending to In Progress to Completed, and Overdue takes care of itself: once the due date passes, the action says so without anyone flipping a switch. Mark one Completed and Calladhere stamps the date and the name of whoever closed it, then resolves the violation along with it. The finding and the fix close together, which is the entire point of the exercise.

If the template required verification, the action carries a Needs verification badge, so nobody mistakes "the agent says it's handled" for "somebody actually checked."

And because the action rides on the violation itself, it travels with it. Your violations table shows the corrective action and its type as columns, so "which of these actually have a fix attached" stops being a question you answer one row at a time.

The lines that don't move

A few rules we aren't flexible about.

Admins build the template library. Admins and QA apply corrective actions and close them out. Managers can look at both and change neither. Agents see none of it. Those rules are enforced on the server, not just hidden in the interface, so an unauthorized request is refused rather than merely undisplayed.

Reversed violations don't take new corrective actions. If you've decided a violation shouldn't have been raised, attaching a fix to it makes no sense, so the sheet says so plainly and declines. Removing a stale action from a reversed violation still works, because cleanup should always be possible.

Every change is on the record. Creating, editing, or archiving a template lands in your organization's activity log with a field-level diff, and every corrective action added, edited, or removed is written to that violation's own audit trail with the real name and role of the person who did it. When someone asks why an action changed three weeks ago, the answer exists.

The bottom line

Finding a compliance problem was never the hard part. Doing something consistent about it, on every violation, across every reviewer, without turning your QA team into typists, is the hard part. Build the library once and that work mostly stops being work.

Corrective action templates are available now under Comply for both Medicare and ACA organizations, with nothing extra to pay. Access is governed by a new Corrective Actions permission, granted to full access and manager roles by default, and your reviewers see the picker the moment your first template exists.

Want a hand building your first set of templates? Reach out to your account manager or email us at hello@calladhere.com.