To monitor whether treatment integrity repairs persist, predefine follow-up intervals, representative conditions, ordinary supports, eligible opportunities, missing-check rules, drift signals, client outcomes and experience, burden, and decision triggers. Keep the original barrier and repair visible. Later implementation under sampled conditions can support a maintenance statement; it cannot prove performance during every unobserved routine.

Lock the follow-up schedule

Choose intervals and conditions before seeing results. Record partners, settings, ordinary supports, and which procedure version applies.

Select an early check for uptake and later checks that can reveal maintenance across realistic routines. Define eligible opportunities, minimum exposure, observation mode, agreement sampling, and who owns each date. Include staff turnover, schedule changes, and uncommon but important situations. A convenient observation in one setting cannot establish that the repair persisted throughout the intended scope.

Use a schedule that reflects the failure mode. A material fix may need checks after supply cycles or location changes, while a coached skill may need sampling after time and without prompts. List conditions that restart or extend the schedule, such as a new version or implementer. Avoid closing maintenance before those meaningful tests occur.

Keep misses and context

Report completed checks over checks due, with reason and age for every open check. Note access, health, schedule, staffing, and opportunity changes.

Freeze the follow-up cohort and preserve absent staff, unavailable settings, canceled visits, missing opportunities, and client decline as explicit states. Report raw numerators and denominators rather than calculating only among completed checks. Distinguish a missed observation from a failed repair. Repeated inability to observe may itself reveal an operational or measurement problem needing an owner.

Publish an aging view for open checks and assign next action, owner, and due date. Do not repeatedly reschedule missing observations until they vanish from the review period. Separate not yet due, due but missed, invalid, and no eligible opportunity. Those states support different responses and make the maintenance claim auditable.

Measure the repair mechanism

Track whether the material, definition, training, workflow, or supervision change itself remained available, along with implementation and client outcomes.

Verify both delivery and continued access to the repair. Training attendance does not show skill maintenance, and a material shipment does not show that the item reached each routine. Observe the targeted component, system condition, client experience, access, burden, and goal outcome on aligned dates. Preserve ordinary adaptations and changes in the clinical plan.

Predefine the next response

Use booster coaching for a classified skill gap, system repair for infrastructure, and clinical redesign for poor fit. Review Safiya's experience after each change.

State which evidence supports closure, continued monitoring, added teaching, environmental repair, reassessment, or a pause. Assign authority, response time, and an interim safeguard for critical risks. Keep clinical supervision, operations, quality, employment, certification, and payer decisions in their lanes. Version any new repair and schedule another follow-up rather than assuming completion after action is assigned.

Put the repair-monitoring plan into practice

Safiya's plan checks the repair after one, four, and ten weeks across two partners. Each due check remains in the denominator if missed. The review separates material availability, implementer steps, Safiya's accessible self-advocacy, partner response, burden, and outcome. A recurring missing-material problem returns to operations.

Keep supervision, quality, and employment roles separate for Safiya

Safiya's integrity-repair maintenance plan identifies the clinical decision owner, observer, supervisor, quality reviewer, operations owner, privacy contact, and employment owner. State which process is active, what notice and evidence it uses, who may decide, and where the record belongs. One integrity observation should not silently change purpose after collection.

Protect client access during Safiya's review

Safiya's process keeps AAC, interpreters, mobility, food, water, bathroom use, prescribed care, health support, rest, relationships, and emergency help available. Obtain required consent and assent when applicable and follow the governing response to withdrawal or distress. Client protection can require immediate action while broader measurement and personnel conclusions remain pending.

Use raw evidence and matched denominators for Safiya

Report Safiya's correctly implemented components divided by eligible components due, observations completed divided by observations due, agreement pairs divided by pairs due, and repairs verified divided by repairs due. Keep procedure versions, critical steps, exposure, client outcomes, direct experience, access, missingness, adaptations, drift, burden, and adverse effects in separate series.

Ask six supervision and review questions for Safiya

Use these questions in the integrity-repair maintenance plan:

  • Which client decision, procedure version, component, and eligible opportunity apply?
  • Which people, settings, risks, supports, observation modes, and sample limits matter?
  • Which integrity, agreement, exposure, outcome, experience, access, and adverse-effect series stay separate?
  • Which skill, clarity, resource, workflow, safety, burden, supervision, or plan-fit barrier is supported?
  • Which clinical, quality, operations, privacy, employment, certification, or payer owner may act?
  • Which repair, stop rule, follow-up evidence, and review date close the loop?

Keep unresolved evidence visible with a state, owner, age, and next action.

A fictional supervision example for Safiya

Safiya is fictional and involved in an evening self-advocacy routine after a material and coaching repair. Reviewers freeze 30 interval, condition, support, check, missing, drift, integrity, client-experience, outcome, burden, and decision fields and complete 21 of 30 by the checkpoint. Missing, unobservable, inapplicable, adapted, drifted, disputed, failed, and pending fields keep their defined states.

The integrity-repair maintenance plan measures evidence completeness. It does not establish effectiveness, safety, acceptability, competence, employment performance, certification compliance, medical necessity, authorization, payment, generalization, maintenance, or causation.

Use current sources within their scope for Safiya

For Safiya's integrity-repair maintenance plan, the CASP public summary supplies high-level individualized assessment, implementation, and evaluation scope for ABA treatment of autistic people. The BACB Ethics Code addresses competence, client involvement, consent and assent when applicable, supervision, risk, documentation, and evaluation for covered behavior analysts. The BACB supervision page routes readers to role-specific supervision and training resources; those requirements do not replace licensure, payer, employment, or case authority.

For Safiya, the BCBA Test Content Outline addresses procedural fidelity as examination content; case protocols require qualified case-specific authority. The Ferguson practitioner guide supports observable components and eligible opportunities. The Essig, Rotta, and Poling review supports caution in fidelity-report interpretation. ASHA says AAC users should always have access to their tools or devices. Set coaching triggers, comparison rules, and performance thresholds from the current case and setting.

Close Safiya's review

Ask Safiya, the implementer, and the responsible clinician to review the integrity-repair maintenance plan through accessible communication. Record the evidence, perspectives, limitations, selected repair, responsible system, clinical decision, follow-up observation, client outcome and experience, and review date. Reopen the analysis when the procedure, client priority, access, health, setting, implementer, supervisor, risk, or outcome changes.

Related resources

Sources