SPARCS Data Quality Audits: The 90-Day Correction Window

By Two Pillars & Co Advisory Group · Sources checked October 2026

What is a SPARCS data quality audit?

Compliance discussions usually focus on volume and timeliness because the reports make them visible. The Department’s protocol, however, describes its compliance monitoring as covering completeness (volume), timeliness and accuracy (quality).^[1] Accuracy is harder to see and easier to neglect, which is why the protocol includes a separate section on it.

The protocol explains that SPARCS regulations permit the program to conduct an audit evaluating the quality of submitted data and to issue a SPARCS Data Quality Audit Report listing any inadequacies or inconsistencies in the data. The program may also contact facilities when inadequacies, inconsistencies or anomalies are identified through normal business operations that may affect data quality.^[1] In other words, a quality finding can come from a formal audit or from the program’s routine contact with a facility.

What is the 90-day correction window?

Any facility that receives an audit report, or is notified of a confirmed data quality issue, must correct and successfully resubmit the audited data to the program within 90 days.^[1] The word “successfully” matters. A resubmission that is itself rejected does not meet the requirement, so the correction should be tested against the portal’s edits before the window runs out.

The clock is short enough to require a plan. Finding the root cause, fixing the source records, regenerating the file and resubmitting can easily take several weeks if the problem lies in a registration or coding practice rather than in a single bad file. A facility that receives a report should assign an owner immediately, write down the intended fix and timeline, and keep the program informed.

What happens after 90 days?

The protocol states that if a facility has not been in communication with SPARCS in good faith to address compliance notices, and remains non-compliant after 90 days, a Statement of Deficiency is sent to the facility’s CEO or administrator. A Plan of Correction is then required.^[1] The process after that point follows the same path as other compliance matters: a Plan of Correction due within 15 days, and, if that is not honored, possible referral to the Department’s Division of Legal Affairs.^[1]

Note the emphasis on communication. The protocol’s language ties the Statement of Deficiency to a facility that has not engaged in good faith. A facility that responds promptly, explains its plan and meets its own timeline is in a much stronger position than one that stays silent, even if the correction takes longer than expected.

How can a facility prevent quality findings?

The protocol encourages facilities to ensure data quality through complete and accurate submission. It specifically advises paying attention to errors flagged by SPARCS edits when data are submitted through the portal, monitoring the audit reports to see whether any submissions have been rejected, and investigating any rejections for possible data quality errors. The program says it can help determine the root cause of quality issues and the corrective actions needed to resubmit.^[1]

Quality problems often arise from registration and coding practice, not from submission technology, so the fix may involve staff outside the data team. The July 2026 forum is a good example of the program’s current focus: it asked facilities to review data entry practices so that personally identifiable information is not entered into fields that are not designed for it.^[2]

Consider an invented example. A facility’s emergency department records pass every edit, but a review shows that an unusually large share list the same disposition value. Nothing is rejected, but the data is not useful for analysis. A quality audit report that listed the pattern would give the facility 90 days to correct the underlying records and resubmit. The example is hypothetical, but it shows why edits alone do not guarantee quality.

What routines catch problems early?

A few lightweight habits help. Profile key fields each quarter, counting how often each value appears and looking for implausible concentrations or blanks. Compare your data with the public SPARCS summary datasets, which are described in other articles in this series, to see whether your facility’s mix looks unusual. Keep a log of corrections made and resubmitted, so you can show good-faith effort if the program asks.

The sources do not say how many quality audit reports are issued each year or which fields they most often cite. The quarterly submitter forum summaries are the best place to learn which issues the program is currently emphasizing.^[2]

Frequently asked questions

What to do next

1. Profile your key fields for unusual patterns each quarter.
2. Investigate rejected records for quality causes, not only file errors.
3. If a report arrives, assign an owner and a timeline the same week.
4. Keep a written log of corrections and communications with the program.