Abstract  Quality and patient safety are terms that both providers and recipients of healthcare are very familiar with. Accreditation is another term that is closely linked to quality and patient safety. Audit is a systematic, independent, and documented process for obtaining evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which audit criteria are fulfilled. Accreditation and audit are integral components of the same process. Three different types of audit are well recognized—internal, external, and co-operative. Reading of relevant documents, observation of laboratory practices, and asking open-ended probing questions are important auditing techniques. For auditing to be successful, experienced, qualified, and well trained auditors are essential. Furthermore, the auditor should be open-minded, not prejudiced, a team player and effective communicator, both in writing and verbally. In many instances, the emphasis for seeking laboratory accreditation has shifted from building quality systems—to produce reliable results and ensure patient safety—to just passing the inspection. Recently, the emphasis for laboratory quality improvement has been placed on pre and post-analytical processes in preference to analytical quality. The analytical quality of laboratory results is still far from ideal and it may be detrimental if less emphasis is placed on this aspect of laboratory medicine. Auditing or on-site inspection as a regulatory tool does not work or present a realistic picture of laboratory quality. A continuous quality improvement approach will help laboratories to build quality into their systems.