Is an electronic signature legally valid?

Yes. Electronic signatures are legally valid in the United States under the ESIGN Act and state UETA laws when intent, consent, attribution, and record retention are met.

Do sensitive healthcare records need special handling?

Yes. If the review includes protected health information, apply HIPAA safeguards and a signed BAA with your eSignature vendor before transmitting or storing PHI.

When is notarization required for a review report?

Notarization is rarely required for internal QMS reviews but may be contractually required for certain deliverables or legal filings; verify contract or regulator requirements.

How long should review evidence be retained?

Retain evidence for the active period plus regulatory minima: typically 3 years for tax-related items, 6 years for HIPAA-related records, and longer if contractually obligated.

Can reviewers sign remotely and still meet audit requirements?

Yes. Remote signatures are acceptable if the platform captures a verifiable audit trail, signer authentication, and the records are retained in retrievable form.

What if parties disagree about a nonconformity?

Document the disagreement, maintain evidence, escalate to management, and where required adopt an independent review or arbitration per contract terms.

Electronic Signature
Templates
Miscellaneous
Quality Management System Review

Quality Management System Review

This template is fully customizable. Edit the text, fill out the fields, and send it for signature. Give it a try!

QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REVIEW AGREEMENT

This Quality Management System Review Agreement (the Agreement) is entered into as of between Client Name: and Service Provider Name: .

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Client operates a quality management system and seeks an independent review to assess compliance with its documented procedures, regulatory obligations, and recognized quality standards; and

WHEREAS, Service Provider is experienced in conducting audits and reviews of quality management systems and has agreed to provide a QMS review and associated deliverables pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to set forth the scope, deliverables, fees and other terms governing the review.

SCOPE OF WORK

Summary of Review Scope Key Deliverables

REVIEW ACTIVITIES CHECKLIST

Management Review Conducted: Document Control Evaluated: Process Performance Data Reviewed:

Sampling Scope (functions/sites included):

FINDINGS AND NONCONFORMITIES

Summary of Findings Nonconformities Identified Required Corrective Actions

PAYMENT TERMS

Total Fee Payment Schedule

Late Payment Fee: Overdue amounts shall accrue interest at or the maximum allowable by law, whichever is less.

TERM AND TERMINATION

Review Commencement Date: Review Completion Date:

Either party may terminate this Agreement for material breach if the breaching party fails to cure such breach within days after written notice. Either party may also terminate for convenience upon days' prior written notice.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Each party acknowledges that in the performance of this Agreement it may receive Confidential Information of the other party. "Confidential Information" means non-public business, technical, or operational information disclosed in any form. The receiving party shall (a) use Confidential Information only for performance of this Agreement, (b) restrict access to employees and contractors who have a need to know and are bound by confidentiality obligations at least as protective as those herein, and (c) not disclose Confidential Information to third parties without prior written consent, except as required by law. Confidentiality obligations shall survive termination for a period of three years, unless a longer period is required by law.

GOVERNING LAW; DISPUTE RESOLUTION

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of , without regard to conflict of law principles. The parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve disputes by negotiation; if unresolved, disputes shall be resolved by binding arbitration consistent with the arbitration provisions agreed by the parties in writing.

LIMITATIONS AND WARRANTIES

Service Provider shall perform services with reasonable care and skill consistent with industry standards. Except as expressly stated, Service Provider disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Client's sole remedies for breach are limited to re-performance of services or refund of fees paid for the affected services, at Service Provider's option.

ENTIRE AGREEMENT

This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter and supersedes all prior proposals, negotiations and understandings, whether written or oral. Any modification must be in writing and signed by authorized representatives of both parties.

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

Client Contact for Review Coordination Service Provider Contact Primary Site Address for On-site Activities

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The undersigned represent and warrant that they are authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the respective parties, and that the information provided in this document is true and correct to the best of their knowledge.

Client Name:

By:

Date:

Service Provider:

By:

Date:

What a Quality Management System Review Is and When It’s Used

A Quality Management System Review is a structured assessment that evaluates an organization’s policies, procedures, controls, and records related to product or service quality. It documents findings about conformance to internal requirements, regulatory standards, and customer expectations, and identifies corrective actions and opportunities for improvement. Reviews may reference standards such as ISO 9001, contractually required quality clauses, or industry-specific regulations, and produce an audit file that supports continual improvement, management decisions, and regulatory inspections.

Why conducting a formal Quality Management System Review matters

A documented review clarifies compliance gaps, reduces risk of nonconformance, and establishes traceable corrective actions. It supports management oversight, provides evidence for auditors or regulators, and improves product consistency and customer satisfaction when applied regularly.

Who typically completes and reviews a Quality Management System Review

Use by quality managers, internal auditors, compliance officers, and operational leads ensures the review captures process, records, and control effectiveness.

Quality Manager — Prepares the review, aggregates evidence, and proposes corrective actions for management approval.
Internal Auditor — Provides objective assessment, documents nonconformities, and verifies effectiveness of prior actions.
Department Lead — Supplies process records, implements corrective actions, and confirms closure of observations.

Stakeholders across operations, regulatory affairs, and senior leadership should receive final reports so responsibilities and timelines are clear.

Core sections to include in a professional QMS Review

A comprehensive review combines factual evidence, objective findings, root-cause analysis, and a clear corrective-action plan to make results actionable and auditable.

Scope and Objectives

Describe scope, standards referenced, units/locations assessed, and review objectives so readers understand boundaries and evaluation criteria.

Documented Evidence

List records examined (procedures, records, logs, test results), sample sizes, and sample selection method to support traceability and reproducibility.

Findings and Observations

Present factual nonconformities, opportunities for improvement, and positive practices with clear linkage to evidence and severity assessment.

Root-Cause Analysis

Summarize root-cause methods used (5 Whys, fishbone), key contributing factors, and evidence that supports the causal conclusion.

Corrective and Preventive Actions

Define action owners, due dates, verification steps, and metrics for measuring closure and effectiveness of each corrective action.

Review Summary and Approval

Provide an executive summary, management response, and signatures or approvals with dates to close the review loop and record accountability.

Essential record and compliance items to include

Reviewer Name: Full legal name of the reviewer

Review Date: MM/DD/YYYY format

Scope Identifier: Site, process, or contract ID

Evidence Index: List of reviewed records

Action Owner: Assigned responsible party

Closure Status: Open, In progress, Closed

Step-by-step: completing a Quality Management System Review

Follow a consistent sequence to gather evidence, evaluate findings, assign corrective actions, and document closure for audit readiness.

01

Plan: Define scope, objectives, and sampling plan in writing.
02

Collect Evidence: Obtain records, interview staff, and observe processes.
03

Document Findings: Log observations, classify severity, and link to evidence.
04

Assign Actions: Create CAPA items with owners and verification criteria.

How to configure an online review workflow for digital completion

A digital workflow reduces manual handoffs and preserves a searchable audit trail. Configure fields, authentication, and routing before launching.

Field	Configuration
Reviewer Assignment	Role-based routing to quality team
Authentication	Email + optional SMS code
Conditional Fields	Show corrective-action fields only when nonconformance recorded
Retention Tagging	Apply retention metadata on completion

Where to send completed QMS Review reports

Route finalized reports to internal owners, record repositories, and external stakeholders as required by policy or contract.

Quality Records Archive: Store final report with evidence index in secure records repository
Management: Distribute executive summary to leadership
Regulatory Bodies: Submit when required for inspections or certifications
Customer or Contract Owner: Provide redacted report as contractual deliverable

Technical and file-format considerations for digital reviews

Verify that your e‑workflow platform supports required file formats, audit logging, and the level of signer authentication your process requires.

File Formats: PDF, DOCX, XLSX, HTML supported
Integrations: Salesforce, NetSuite, Google Workspace
Security: TLS in transit; AES-256 at rest

Ensure the platform can export signed packages with an audit trail and long-term storage options compatible with your retention policy.

Typical timelines and deadlines for QMS Review activities

Set clear interim and final deadlines so corrective actions are tracked and closure evidence is verifiable within expected windows.

Scheduled Reviews:

Annual or as required by contract or certification body

Critical Nonconformity Response:

Containment actions within 24–72 hours

Corrective Action Target:

Root cause and CAPA plan within 30 days

Verification Period:

Effectiveness check typically 60–90 days after closure

Management Review Filing:

Submit consolidated review to senior management per schedule

Common mistakes to avoid when preparing the review

Insufficient evidence — citing conclusions without attaching the supporting records or observation notes.
Vague corrective actions — assigning generic tasks without owners, dates, or measurable verification.
Improper sampling — reviewing too small or biased sample sizes that fail to represent the process.
Poor version control — attaching superseded procedures or records that invalidate the audit trail.

Risks and potential consequences of an incomplete or incorrect review

Regulatory Fines: Fines or enforcement actions

Certification Loss: Suspension or revocation of certification

Product Recall: Costly recall or remediation

Contractual Penalties: Breach claims and financial penalties

Reputational Harm: Customer trust erosion

Operational Disruption: Production or delivery delays

Real-world examples showing review outcomes and value

Examples illustrate how documented reviews resolve issues and improve processes across different organizations.

Martin Properties

A small property management firm used remote reviews to close compliance gaps quickly

Review identified process gaps in tenant onboarding and maintenance logs
Management implemented corrective steps and documented closure, enabling faster lease processing and audit-ready records across multiple properties.

Fertility Centers of Illinois

A healthcare provider emphasized secure, compliant workflows for records

The review focused on record retention and access controls
The team updated procedures, tightened access, and documented verification steps to align with privacy obligations and internal policy.

Comparing common eSignature providers for Quality Management System Review workflows

Vendor pricing and feature availability affect cost and technical fit; signNow is listed first for direct comparison with leading eSignature platforms.

	signNow	DocuSign	Adobe Sign	PandaDoc	HelloSign
Starting Price	$8/user/mo	$15/user/mo	$14/user/mo	$19/user/mo	$15/user/mo
Free Trial	7-day free trial	Varies by offer	Varies by offer	Varies by offer	Varies by offer
Bulk Send	Yes (Business Premium+)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Audit Trail	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
HIPAA Compliant	Yes (BAA required)	Yes	Yes	No	No
Envelope Cap	No cap	100 env/user/yr	Varies	Varies	Varies

Frequently asked questions about Quality Management System Review completion

Practical answers to common questions covering legal validity, signatures, recordkeeping, and digital submission for QMS reviews.

Need help? Contact support

Is an electronic signature legally valid?
Yes. Electronic signatures are legally valid in the United States under the ESIGN Act and state UETA laws when intent, consent, attribution, and record retention are met.
Do sensitive healthcare records need special handling?
Yes. If the review includes protected health information, apply HIPAA safeguards and a signed BAA with your eSignature vendor before transmitting or storing PHI.
When is notarization required for a review report?
Notarization is rarely required for internal QMS reviews but may be contractually required for certain deliverables or legal filings; verify contract or regulator requirements.
How long should review evidence be retained?
Retain evidence for the active period plus regulatory minima: typically 3 years for tax-related items, 6 years for HIPAA-related records, and longer if contractually obligated.
Can reviewers sign remotely and still meet audit requirements?
Yes. Remote signatures are acceptable if the platform captures a verifiable audit trail, signer authentication, and the records are retained in retrievable form.
What if parties disagree about a nonconformity?
Document the disagreement, maintain evidence, escalate to management, and where required adopt an independent review or arbitration per contract terms.

be ready to get more

Join over 28 million airSlate SignNow users

Sign Now