MyCSF

JUMP TO ANOTHER FORUM

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback
  1. for N/A requirements, change to a single "agree with N/A"

    6 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  2. It would be great if there was an option to sort/filter requirements based on the Unique ID, not just the level or control.

    25 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  3. Remove edit check that requires client to upload a rep letter in order to submit a domain to the assessor. This is too early in the process to provide a rep letter - currently, clients must upload a fake / placeholder document as a workaround.

    2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Started  ·  1 comment  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  4. Within an Assessment, the tool should clearly indicate/label inputs that are included in the HITRUST issued Report.

    14 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Proposed  ·  2 comments  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  5. There are times when the addition of assessor team quality review pushes past the 90-day window. We get backlogged the same way you do. We always adhere to the 90-day window for accepting and reviewing evidence, and we can demonstrate that reasonably. But it would be helpful if there was some flexibility around the submission date. If we plug in the real dates of assessment, and then submit 91 days after we started testing, the system errors due to >90.

    Introducing the notion of the defined assessment window of 90 days, and the CHQP review period (stated dates) might help…

    2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  6. Date of Submission should be when HT approves Assessment

    9 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  7. HITRUST's guidance allows zero-population requirements to be scored at fully compliant on the implemented level IF a well-defined policy and procedure exists for the assessed entity to observe should the related activity occur. However, MyCSF doesn't currently do a good job of allowing assessed entities and assessors to efficiently communicate this scenario. Because MyCSF requires that evidence be linked to a scored implemented PRISMA level, assessors are often forced to tag the policy or procedure documents to the implemented PRISMA level in this scenario. To remedy, MyCSF should offer a flag (e.g., a checkbox) which can be used to communicate…

    8 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  8. MyCSF will automatically delete the draft report files 7 days after the final reports are posted.

    5 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 comments  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  9. QA times should be reservation-based instead of the current first come, first served model.

    10 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Started  ·  0 comments  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  10. Can we add an enhancement to add the control reference to the requirement statements layout. Like the below. People have a hard time of telling what the requirements are related to without the name. Example is the constant confusion on 09.x and 09.y controls. They are all e-commerce and online transaction but some of them do not have either of those terms within the statement so people think it is just a standalone control.

    09.x Electronic Commerce Services
    !1579275197061-0.png!

    9 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  11. Provide assessors the ability to revert entire domains back to clients- even if the feature was only available when the status of the domain is "assessor review pending". This would avoid needing to request HITRUST to revert domains if clients accidentally hit submit too early.

    7 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  12. Capability that allows a user to submit a reverted Question to their External Assessor without waiting for the Domain and/or Assessment to be completed.

    7 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  13. The ability for customers to create their own tags on the Requirement Statements and sort/filter based upon their custom tags.

    7 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  14. There needs to be a half-way point between the requirement statement and domain level for delegating responsibilities. It would be nice to have the ability to select multiple requirement statements within a domain and then delegate those statements rather than completing each one individually.

    2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  15. Feature allowing a user to edit or remove a diary entry

    6 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  16. Make the "Expand All" button a toggle button. Currently the "Expand All" button can only be used to expand all of the requirements in the active domain. I'd like for it to change to "Collapse All" after it has been pressed, allowing the users to collapse all of the requirements in the domain.

    5 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  17. Allow users to subscribe to an Assessment's Diary entries so that they are notified when they are entered. Subscribe either at the Assessment or Statement level.

    4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  18. delegation percentage graph

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  19. show indication of who entered customer scoring- customer or internal assessor

    1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  20. I'd like to see the submission to HITRUST workflow be expanded to require that both the external assessor AND the customer approve the submission of the assessment object to HITRUST.

    3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with:
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Performing & Submitting Assessments  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
← Previous 1
  • Don't see your idea?