And How to Avoid Them Written By Dr. Stacey R. Atkins, PhD, MSW, LSW, CPC, CIGE
Internal investigations are among the most sensitive and consequential activities within a healthcare compliance program. A single misstep can compromise objectivity, violate confidentiality, or weaken the organization’s legal position.
This article draws directly from the American Institute of Healthcare Compliance (AIHC) Certified Internal Forensic Healthcare Auditor (CIFHA) course section on Accepting the Investigation, offering practical insights into how compliance professionals can avoid the ten most common mistakes that undermine investigative credibility. By recognizing and mitigating bias, maintaining procedural rigor, and aligning with regulatory expectations, investigators can uphold integrity, transparency, and trust throughout the process.
Introduction
Accepting an investigation is one of the most critical phases of the investigative process. It sets the tone for impartiality, credibility, and compliance alignment. According to the Office of Inspector General’s 2023 guidance, healthcare organizations should ensure that all investigations are handled promptly, independently, and in a manner that promotes accurate fact-finding and appropriate corrective action.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) echoes this standard, emphasizing that organizations must demonstrate a “culture of compliance” through objective internal inquiry and documentation of remedial steps.
Yet, even experienced compliance professionals can make procedural or ethical missteps that jeopardize outcomes. From failing to define the scope to letting personal bias color the process, each mistake introduces risk—not only to the credibility of the investigation but also to the organization’s standing with regulators. Accepting the Investigation is the first critical step to understand how to recognize these pitfalls and establish a disciplined, unbiased approach.
Ten Common Mistakes in Internal Investigations—and How to Avoid Them
1. Failing to Define Scope Clearly
A well-defined scope sets boundaries and expectations. Without it, investigators risk “mission creep”—expanding beyond the original allegations and diluting focus. According to the Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA, 2024), scope definition should occur immediately upon assignment and be approved by compliance leadership. Avoid this mistake by drafting a clear investigative plan that identifies issues, potential evidence sources, and expected deliverables.
2. Allowing Personal Bias to Influence Judgment
Bias can undermine objectivity, even when unintentional. Investigators may have preconceived notions about the individuals involved or the departments under review. According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners 2024 report, confirmation bias is one of the most common cognitive errors in fraud examinations. To mitigate this risk, investigators are encouraged to use a standardized evaluation framework, rely on documented evidence, and involve a peer reviewer when feasible.
3. Neglecting to Secure Evidence Early
Delays in securing documentation, emails, or system access logs can result in data alteration or loss. Early preservation is critical for maintaining evidentiary integrity. The DOJ’s guidance on corporate investigations recommends issuing immediate document preservation notices and maintaining a clear chain of custody. Compliance officers should coordinate promptly with IT, HR, and legal counsel to secure relevant records.
4. Ignoring Chain-of-Custody Procedures
Even if evidence is obtained, failure to maintain proper chain-of-custody documentation can render it unreliable. Investigators must track who collected each item, when, and under what conditions. This process ensures credibility in both internal reviews and external proceedings. Adhering to established forensic documentation procedures, such as those outlined in the AIHC Investigations training, protects evidence integrity and supports defensible reporting.
5. Failing to Document Interviews Accurately
Interview summaries form the backbone of many investigations. Inaccurate or incomplete notes can lead to inconsistent conclusions. According to OIG compliance best practices, investigators should use structured templates, record factual statements, and avoid subjective language. Review notes immediately after interviews to ensure accuracy while details are fresh, and maintain them as part of the official investigation record.
6. Overlooking Confidentiality Protocols
Breaching confidentiality can compromise employee trust and expose the organization to liability. Investigators should disclose only essential information on a need-to-know basis. The OIG’s 2023 General Compliance Program Guidance recommends protecting the identities of whistleblowers and limiting discussion of investigative matters to authorized personnel. Reinforce confidentiality expectations at the outset of every interview.
7. Mismanaging Communication with Legal Counsel
Failure to coordinate properly with legal counsel can result in privilege issues or inconsistent messaging to regulators. Investigators should engage counsel early in the process, particularly when there is potential for self-disclosure or legal exposure. Counsel can help preserve attorney-client privilege and guide how findings are shared externally.
8. Failing to Distinguish Between Facts and Assumptions
Investigations must rely on verifiable facts rather than assumptions or opinions. Mistaking interpretation for evidence can erode the report’s credibility. Investigators should clearly separate facts, analysis, and conclusions in their notes and reports. According to Compliance Week (2023), factual accuracy is the single most important determinant of whether an investigative report is considered defensible under regulatory review.
9. Rushing to Conclusions or Recommendations
Pressure to conclude quickly can lead to incomplete analysis or unjustified findings. The CIFHA curriculum emphasizes patience and thorough review—investigators should evaluate all available data and corroborate key points before finalizing conclusions. Interim summaries and peer reviews can provide checkpoints for accuracy and completeness.
10. Neglecting Follow-Up and Corrective Actions
An investigation is incomplete if it fails to lead to corrective action. According to the Government Accountability Office’s 2023 Fraud Risk Management Framework, closure should include documented remediation steps, training updates, and monitoring plans. Compliance officers should track outcomes to ensure identified risks are addressed and similar issues do not recur.
Building Investigative Integrity: Best Practices
The American Institute of Healthcare Compliance emphasizes that the credibility of an investigation depends on procedural rigor, ethical consistency, and adherence to compliance principles. Best practices include maintaining neutrality, engaging legal counsel early, and ensuring every step—from planning to reporting—is supported by clear documentation. Investigators should continuously assess their own potential biases and seek peer consultation when objectivity might be compromised.
Other proven strategies include developing investigation charters, maintaining secure digital evidence repositories, and conducting post-investigation debriefings. These steps not only enhance transparency but also create a feedback loop that improves organizational learning.
Conclusion
Conducting a compliant and credible internal investigation requires planning, impartiality, and discipline.
Each of the ten mistakes outlined above can erode trust and expose an organization to risk if not proactively addressed. By integrating appropriate protocols in your investigative framework, healthcare professionals can ensure investigations are fair, defensible, and aligned with regulatory expectations. When investigators accept assignments with integrity and preparedness, they transform investigations from reactive responses into proactive tools for organizational improvement and compliance maturity.
About the Author
Dr. Stacey R. Atkins, PhD, MSW, LMSW, CPC, CIGE
Dr. Atkins is a Compliance Specialist working as a team member in the Education Department of the American Institute of Healthcare Compliance. Her career spans leadership roles with the Office of the State Inspector General, Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, and HRSA, among others.
References
- Office of Inspector General (OIG). (2023). General Compliance Program Guidance.
- U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs.
- Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE). (2024). Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse.
- Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA). (2024). Best Practices for Internal Investigations.
- Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2023). Fraud Risk Management Framework.
- Compliance Week. (2023). Maintaining Objectivity in Internal Investigations.
- Deloitte. (2024). Emerging Trends in Healthcare Investigations.
- Office of Inspector General (OIG). (2023). Compliance Program Effectiveness Resource Guide.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (2024). Healthcare Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) Report.
Copyright © 2025 American Institute of Healthcare Compliance All Rights Reserved