EDITIONEN·FR·ქართ
ASF Logo

Accréditation Sans Frontières

International Accreditation of Healthcare Facilities

Start accreditation  
ASF Standards · Ambulatory Clinic · Standard 24

Standard 24 — Medical Tourism

10 criteria · 8 non-negotiable · 2 core · Version 3.0

Criteria in this standard

24.1 — Pricing Transparency for International Patients
24.2 — Remote Records Transfer to Home-Country Physician
24.3 — Language Access for Foreign Patients
24.4 — Travel, Accommodation, and Logistics Coordination
24.5 — Post-Return Complication Tracking
24.6 — Visa and Embassy Support Documentation
24.7 — International Patient Complaint and Redress Process
24.8 — Facilitators and Agents Are Verified, Not Assumed Legitimate
24.9 — Travel-Associated Infection Risk Protocol
24.10 — Post-Procedure Travel Timing and Venous Thromboembolism Risk
24.1

Pricing Transparency for International Patients

Non-Negotiable

International patients receive a complete, written, all-inclusive cost estimate before travel is booked — covering the procedure and commonly needed extras — not a partial quote that grows once the patient has already committed to travelling.

In plain terms: International patients get a complete written cost estimate before they book travel — procedure, stay, and the extras that usually come up — with nothing hidden.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Full Full

Why this matters

A patient who flies 3,000 km for surgery has no way to walk away when the bill is double the quote. They have spent on flights and hotels; they are far from home; they may be already admitted. Cost surprises for international patients are not only a complaint risk — they are a reputational catastrophe that spreads through the facilitator networks that bring patients. An all-inclusive estimate — procedure, anaesthesia, treatment area stay, standard medications, standard follow-up — with clearly stated exclusions and the conditions that could change it, is the basis of trust. It should be given in writing, in a language the patient reads, before they commit to travel.

What good looks like

  • Every international patient receives a complete, written, all-inclusive estimate before booking.
  • The estimate genuinely covers commonly needed extras, not just the base fee.
  • A transparent, defined process exists for any genuine cost change.

Common failure modes

  • Estimates are verbal, partial, or given only after the patient has already committed to travel.
  • The quote covers only the base procedure, with predictable extras added later.
  • Cost increases appear on the final bill without prior communication.

Worked example

In practice
A 14-room clinic receiving 200 international patients a year for orthopaedic and cosmetic surgery.
BeforeEstimates were given verbally by the international patient office and covered the surgeon's fee only. Patients arrived and were charged separately for anaesthesia, implants, extra nights, and medications. Complaints from international patients were three times the rate of domestic ones; two negative reviews on a facilitator's site cited 'hidden costs.'
ActionA standard estimate template was created per procedure: surgeon, anaesthesia, implants, expected stay, standard medications, one follow-up — total; plus a stated list of what is excluded and what circumstances could increase the cost. It is emailed in the patient's language before booking, with a signature line. Any charge outside the estimate requires the patient's written agreement.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 15 international patient files: all had signed estimates matching final invoices within stated exclusions. International patient complaints down 70%. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Pull ten international patient files and compare the estimate given to the final bill.
  2. Build an all-inclusive estimate template per common procedure, with stated exclusions.
  3. Email it before booking, in the patient's language, with a signature.
  4. Require written patient agreement for any charge outside the estimate.
The most common mistake: Quoting the surgeon's fee and treating everything else as 'extras' the patient should have expected.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does every international patient receive a complete, written, all-inclusive estimate before booking travel? — Written and complete, not a verbal figure that leaves room to grow later.
Evidence: Written cost estimate documentation
2. Does the estimate cover commonly needed extras, not just the base procedure fee? — Genuinely all-inclusive, not a narrow quote that predictably grows.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Is there a specific process for handling a genuine, unforeseeable cost change once the patient has arrived? — A defined, transparent process, not an unexplained addition to the bill.
Evidence: Cost change communication protocol

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Estimates are written and complete for the primary procedure but not for commonly bundled extras. — A patient comparing quotes needs the genuinely full picture, not just the headline procedure cost.
  • The estimate is provided in writing but only after initial travel arrangements are already underway. — The protective value of advance pricing depends on it arriving before the patient's negotiating position weakens.
  • A cost change process exists but isn't proactively explained to patients in advance.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current pricing communication practice against genuine advance, all-inclusive standard.
Week 2 Build a complete, written estimate template covering commonly needed extras.
Week 3 Establish a transparent process for communicating any genuine cost change.
Ongoing Audit final costs against original estimates for a sample of patients.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Cost estimate review Reviews written estimates provided to a sample of recent international patients for completeness.
ASK Patient cost experience interview Asks a recent international patient whether their final cost matched what they were quoted before travel.
DOCUMENT Cost change protocol review Reviews the process for communicating any genuine, unforeseeable cost change.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask a recent international patient directly whether the final cost matched the original quote. — This is the clearest, most direct test of genuine pricing transparency.
  • Ask to see a written estimate for a specific, real patient, not a generic template. — A real example reveals whether the practice is genuinely followed, not just documented in policy.

Evidence base

[101] WHO's guidance on financial protection in health systems identifies advance cost transparency as a determinant of genuine informed consent, a principle that applies with particular force when the patient has limited ability to seek a second opinion or negotiate after arrival.

ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →

Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.

24.2

Remote Records Transfer to Home-Country Physician

Non-Negotiable

A complete, usable record of the care provided is genuinely transferred to the patient's home-country physician before or immediately after the patient departs — not left to the patient to request, translate, and forward themselves.

In plain terms: When an international patient goes home, their own doctor receives a complete, usable record of what was done — not a one-line discharge note.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Full Full

Why this matters

The patient's home-country physician will manage the recovery, the complications, and the follow-up — often for years. If all they receive is 'total hip replacement, uneventful,' they do not know the implant type, the antibiotic given, the anticoagulation plan, or what to watch for. A complication then becomes a mystery. A usable record means: operation note, implant details, medications on discharge with duration, follow-up plan, warning signs, and how to contact the operating surgeon — in a language the home physician reads, sent directly or given to the patient in a sealed form.

What good looks like

  • A complete record handoff is genuinely completed and confirmed before or at departure.
  • Records are provided in a form the home provider can actually use.
  • A specific post-departure contact pathway is provided to every patient.

Common failure modes

  • Records exist but handoff completion is never confirmed.
  • Records are technically available but not in a usable language or format.
  • No specific contact pathway exists for post-departure complications.

Worked example

In practice
A 10-room clinic performing joint replacements for patients from three neighbouring countries.
BeforePatients left with a one-page discharge summary in the local language. Home physicians could not read it and did not know the implant type. A patient with a post-operative infection was treated with the wrong antibiotic at home because the home physician did not know what had been used. The clinic learned of this only when the patient's lawyer called.
ActionA structured international discharge pack was created: operation note, implant sticker, medication list with duration, follow-up schedule, five warning signs, and the surgeon's direct email — translated into English and the patient's language. It is emailed to the home physician (with consent) and given to the patient in print. A read-receipt is requested.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 12 international discharge packs and evidence of transmission to home physicians. Interviewed a home physician by email who confirmed the pack was usable. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Look at your current international discharge summary. Could a doctor in another country manage a complication from it?
  2. Add: implant details, medications with duration, follow-up plan, warning signs, surgeon contact.
  3. Translate into English and the patient's language.
  4. Send directly to the home physician with the patient's consent.
The most common mistake: Sending the domestic discharge summary in the local language and assuming the patient will explain it to their doctor.

Self-assessment questions

1. Is a specific, complete record handoff to the patient's home provider actually completed before or immediately after departure? — A genuine, completed handoff, not records that exist but were never actually transmitted or confirmed received.
Evidence: Record handoff completion record
2. Are records provided in a form the home provider can actually use — appropriate language, standard format? — Genuinely usable documentation, not technically provided but practically unusable.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Is there a specific process for the patient to reach this facility if a complication arises after returning home? — A specific, known contact pathway, not an assumption the patient would figure out how to reach someone.
Evidence: Post-departure contact protocol

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Handoff happens reliably when the home provider is known in advance but not when the patient hasn't identified one. — Even without a named home provider, the patient still needs usable records and a contact pathway.
  • Records are provided but not translated into a language the likely home provider would use. — Technically provided but practically unusable documentation doesn't achieve genuine continuity.
  • A contact pathway exists but isn't clearly communicated to the patient before they leave.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current handoff practice for genuine completion versus theoretical availability.
Week 2 Establish a process for translating records into a usable language and format.
Week 3 Establish and clearly communicate a specific post-departure contact pathway.
Ongoing Confirm handoff completion for every international patient before departure.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Handoff completion review Reviews records confirming actual completed handoff, not just record availability.
OBSERVE Record usability check Checks whether handoff records are genuinely usable by a home provider, in appropriate language and format.
DOCUMENT Post-departure contact review Reviews the specific post-departure contact protocol provided to patients.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask for a real, recent example of a completed handoff, not a description of the general process. — A real example reveals whether handoff genuinely happens, not just theoretically exists as a policy.
  • Ask a patient directly how they'd reach this facility if a problem developed after they returned home. — A confident, specific answer reveals whether the contact pathway was genuinely communicated.

Evidence base

[102] Continuity of care across international transitions is identified in cross-border healthcare literature as a distinct risk point, with incomplete or inaccessible record transfer directly linked to preventable post-return complications.

ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →

Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.

24.3

Language Access for Foreign Patients

Non-Negotiable

Foreign patients have access to a genuinely competent interpreter for consent, treatment discussions, and aftercare instructions — not an ad hoc arrangement using whichever staff member happens to speak some of the patient's language.

In plain terms: Foreign patients have a competent interpreter — not a family member or a staff member who 'speaks a bit' — for consent, treatment decisions, and discharge.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Full Full

Why this matters

Consent obtained through a relative who softens the bad news is not consent. Discharge instructions given through a porter who speaks 'some English' are instructions half-understood. The moments that require an interpreter are exactly the moments when misunderstanding causes harm: what the surgery involves, what could go wrong, what to do at home. A competent interpreter — professional, or a trained bilingual staff member with a defined role — is a patient safety requirement, not a courtesy. Using children to interpret for parents is prohibited: it is unsafe and it burdens the child.

What good looks like

  • A genuinely trained, competent interpreter is used consistently.
  • Interpreter access is arranged in advance, matched to the patient's language.
  • Patients can explain back key information in their own words.

Common failure modes

  • Whichever staff member happens to speak some of the language is used ad hoc.
  • Interpreter arrangements are improvised on the day of the visit.
  • Patients cannot explain back consent or aftercare information.

Worked example

In practice
A 16-room clinic treating patients from six language groups.
BeforeInterpretation was ad hoc — a family member, a nurse who spoke the language, occasionally a phone app. The Coordinator observed a consent conversation for a hysterectomy interpreted by the patient's teenage son. A post-operative patient was readmitted after misunderstanding discharge instructions interpreted by a cleaner.
ActionThe clinic contracted a telephone interpretation service covering 40 languages, available 24 hours. Four bilingual staff completed a two-day medical interpreter course and were listed with their languages. A rule was written: consent, treatment discussions, and discharge for non-native speakers require a listed interpreter or the phone service; family members may assist but not substitute; children never interpret. Interpreter use is documented.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 15 international patient records: interpreter documented at consent and discharge in all. Observed a phone-interpreted consultation. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Ask how the last five non-native-speaking patients gave consent. Who interpreted?
  2. Contract a phone interpretation service — cost is per minute and modest.
  3. Train two to four bilingual staff as interpreters.
  4. Write the rule: listed interpreter for consent and discharge; never a child.
The most common mistake: Treating a family member as an interpreter — they edit, soften, and mistranslate, and the patient's consent is compromised.

Self-assessment questions

1. Is a genuinely competent, trained interpreter used for consent, treatment discussion, and aftercare instructions? — Trained interpreter competency, not ad hoc bilingual staff pressed into service.
Evidence: Interpreter engagement record
2. Is interpreter access arranged before the patient arrives, not improvised on the day? — Planned in advance, matched to the patient's actual language.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Can the patient explain back key consent and aftercare information in their own words? — Tests genuine understanding, not just that interpretation technically occurred.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • A trained interpreter is used for the main consultation but not for aftercare instructions at discharge. — Aftercare instructions carry real, ongoing risk if misunderstood after the patient has left.
  • Interpreter access exists but isn't confirmed until the patient has already arrived. — Advance confirmation avoids a scramble that risks falling back on ad hoc arrangements.
  • Interpretation occurs but understanding is never actively checked afterward.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current interpreter arrangements for international patients.
Week 2 Establish advance booking of trained interpreters matched to expected patient languages.
Week 3 Extend interpreter use explicitly to aftercare instruction, not only initial consultation.
Ongoing Spot-check patient understanding after interpreted consultations.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Interpreter engagement review Reviews records for genuine, trained interpreter engagement, not ad hoc bilingual staff use.
ASK Advance arrangement interview Asks staff how interpreter access is arranged before an international patient's arrival.
OBSERVE Patient understanding check Checks whether the patient can explain back key consent and aftercare information.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask specifically about aftercare instruction interpretation, not just the main consultation. — This is where interpreter use most commonly lapses.
  • Ask a patient to explain back their own aftercare instructions. — This tests genuine understanding, not just that an interpreter was present.

Evidence base

[103] Professional interpreter use is consistently associated with improved comprehension, informed consent quality, and clinical outcomes compared with ad hoc interpretation by untrained bilingual staff or family members.

ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →

Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.

24.4

Travel, Accommodation, and Logistics Coordination

Core

The facility provides or coordinates genuine support for travel and accommodation logistics around the procedure — not leaving an international patient, often recovering from treatment, to navigate this entirely alone in an unfamiliar country.

In plain terms: The clinic helps international patients with the logistics around their treatment — arrival, accommodation, transport — rather than leaving a recovering patient in a foreign city to manage alone.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Adapted Full

Why this matters

A patient leaving the clinic after surgery in a city where they know no one, do not speak the language, and have a flight in four days is a patient at risk. They may not find a pharmacy, may not know where to go if a wound bleeds, may take a taxi to the wrong clinic. Coordination need not mean running a travel agency; it means a named contact, a list of verified nearby accommodation, arranged transport from airport and between hotel and clinic, and clear instructions for what to do if something goes wrong before the flight home. It is part of the clinical pathway, not a clinicity extra.

What good looks like

  • Genuine coordination support is provided, not just an information list.
  • Accommodation is suitable for actual recovery needs.
  • A specific logistics contact is available during the patient's stay.

Common failure modes

  • Patients receive only a generic list of nearby hotels with no real coordination.
  • Accommodation suitability for recovery is never considered.
  • No specific contact exists for logistics problems during the stay.

Worked example

In practice
A 8-room clinic where international patients arranged their own logistics.
BeforePatients booked their own hotels — sometimes an hour away, sometimes with no lift for a post-operative knee patient. One arrived at 3am with no transport. One was leaving the clinic to a hostel with stairs and no one to help. The international office gave a phone number that was answered only in office hours.
ActionAn international patient coordinator role was created: airport pick-up arranged for every patient; a list of five vetted hotels within 15 minutes, each with a lift and 24-hour reception; transport to and from the clinic; a 24-hour emergency number; a printed 'what to do if' card. Coordination was included in the estimate (8.1).
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the coordinator's log for 20 patients: all with airport transfer, vetted accommodation, and the emergency number issued. Two emergency calls handled within the previous quarter. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Ask the last five international patients how they found accommodation and got to the clinic.
  2. Vet five hotels near the clinic for accessibility and 24-hour reception.
  3. Arrange airport transfer for every international patient.
  4. Issue a 24-hour number and a 'what if' card at discharge.
The most common mistake: Treating logistics as the patient's problem — a post-operative patient in a foreign city with no support is a clinical risk.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does the facility provide or genuinely coordinate travel and accommodation support, not just a list of options? — Real coordination, not information the patient must act on entirely alone.
Evidence: Logistics coordination documentation
2. Is accommodation genuinely suitable for post-procedure recovery, not just conveniently located? — Suitability for actual recovery needs, not proximity alone.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Is there a specific point of contact for logistics problems during the patient's stay? — A specific, known contact, not an assumption the patient will manage independently.
Evidence: Logistics contact protocol

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Coordination support is offered for the arrival but not for the return journey. — Logistics risk doesn't end once the procedure itself is complete.
  • Accommodation recommendations exist but aren't verified for genuine recovery suitability. — A recommendation that hasn't been checked may not actually suit a recovering patient's needs.
  • A contact exists but isn't clearly communicated or reachable outside office hours.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current logistics support against genuine coordination versus informational lists.
Week 2 Verify recommended accommodation options for genuine recovery suitability.
Week 3 Establish a specific, reachable logistics contact for the duration of the stay.
Ongoing Gather patient feedback on logistics coordination quality.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Coordination support review Reviews what genuine travel and accommodation coordination is provided, not just informational lists.
ASK Accommodation suitability interview Asks whether recommended or arranged accommodation genuinely suits post-procedure recovery needs.
DOCUMENT Logistics contact review Reviews the specific point of contact provided for logistics issues during the stay.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask a recent international patient how logistics support actually worked in practice. — Real experience reveals more than a description of intended coordination.
  • Ask what happens if a logistics problem arises outside office hours. — This reveals whether support is genuinely continuous, not just during standard hours.

Evidence base

[104] Patient-reported experience research in medical tourism consistently identifies logistical coordination, not clinical quality alone, as a major determinant of overall satisfaction and perceived safety.

ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →

Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.

24.5

Post-Return Complication Tracking

Non-Negotiable

The facility actively tracks what happens to international patients after they return home — including complications discovered by a home-country physician — not just relying on a generic follow-up call that a satisfied patient may not bother answering.

In plain terms: The clinic follows up with international patients after they go home — and actively tracks complications, including ones their home doctor finds.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Full Full

Why this matters

Once the patient flies home, most clinics never hear from them again — unless they sue. That means the clinic does not know its own complication rate for international patients, cannot learn from it, and cannot improve. A wound infection diagnosed in the home country, an implant failure at six months, a DVT on the flight home: each is data the clinic needs. Active tracking means scheduled contact at defined intervals — one week, one month, three months — by email or phone, with a simple question set, and a way for the home physician to report. It is the only way to know whether the international programme is safe.

What good looks like

  • An active, structured process tracks international patient outcomes after return.
  • A specific, known pathway exists for home-country physicians to report complications.
  • Tracked complications are genuinely reviewed and inform practice.

Common failure modes

  • Tracking relies on a single generic follow-up call with no structured process.
  • No pathway exists for a home-country physician to report a complication.
  • Complications, if tracked, are recorded but never reviewed for learning.

Worked example

In practice
A 10-room clinic that had no contact with international patients after discharge.
BeforeThe clinic reported 'no complications' in international patients because it had no way to know. A facilitator mentioned three patients from one country who had developed infections after returning home; none had been reported to the clinic. Outcome data for international surgery was entirely absent.
ActionA post-return follow-up protocol was set: email at day 7, day 30, and day 90 with a five-question form in the patient's language; a phone call if no response; a direct email address for home physicians to report complications. Responses were logged and reviewed monthly. Complications were entered into the same surveillance system as domestic patients.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed six months of follow-up data: 78% response rate; 4 complications identified and reviewed, one leading to a change in discharge anticoagulation. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Ask: what is your complication rate for international patients? If you don't know, that's the finding.
  2. Set three follow-up points — 7, 30, 90 days — with a short question set.
  3. Give home physicians a direct email to report problems.
  4. Log every response and review monthly.
The most common mistake: Reporting zero complications in international patients because you have never asked.

Self-assessment questions

1. Is there a specific, active process for tracking international patient outcomes after they return home, not just a generic courtesy call? — An active, structured process, not a single, easily-missed follow-up attempt.
Evidence: Post-return tracking protocol
2. Is there a specific pathway for a home-country physician to report a complication back to this facility? — A real, known pathway, not an assumption the physician would somehow know how to reach the facility.
Evidence: Physician reporting pathway
3. Are tracked complications reviewed and used to inform practice, not just recorded? — Genuine learning from real outcomes, not passive record-keeping.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Follow-up happens once but isn't repeated if the patient doesn't respond the first time. — A single missed attempt shouldn't end the tracking process for a real complication risk.
  • A reporting pathway exists but isn't communicated to the patient or their home provider. — An unknown pathway provides no real function.
  • Complications are recorded but never reviewed collectively for patterns.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current post-return follow-up practice for structure versus a single generic attempt.
Week 2 Establish a specific pathway for home-country physicians to report complications.
Week 3 Build a process for reviewing tracked outcomes and feeding findings into practice.
Ongoing Track complication rates and review for patterns periodically.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Tracking protocol review Reviews the specific, active process for tracking international patient outcomes after return.
DOCUMENT Physician reporting pathway review Reviews the specific pathway for a home-country physician to report a complication.
ASK Outcome review interview Asks staff for a real example of a tracked complication that informed a practice change.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask for a real example of a complication learned about after a patient returned home. — A real example, or its honest absence, reveals whether tracking genuinely functions.
  • Ask how a home-country physician would actually reach this facility to report a concern. — A specific, confident answer reveals a genuine pathway, not an assumed one.

Evidence base

[105] Post-operative complication tracking following international medical travel is identified in the medical tourism literature as a systemic gap, with most facilities lacking any mechanism to learn about complications that surface after the patient has returned home.

ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →

Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.

24.6

Visa and Embassy Support Documentation

Core

The facility provides the specific documentation international patients need for medical visa applications and embassy requirements, correctly and promptly — not generic paperwork that leaves the patient to figure out what is actually required themselves.

In plain terms: The clinic provides the specific paperwork international patients need for medical visas and embassies — correctly, in the right format, and on time.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Full Full

Why this matters

A medical visa application needs a letter from the treating clinic stating the diagnosis, the treatment, the dates, the estimated cost, and often a guarantee of accommodation. Each embassy has its own format. A letter that is late, wrongly formatted, or missing a required element means the patient's visa is refused and the surgery is cancelled — with the clinic having lost the case and the patient having lost weeks. This is administrative, not clinical, but it is on the critical path. A clinic serious about international patients has a template for each common embassy and a turnaround commitment.

What good looks like

  • Documentation is specific, correct, and matched to actual visa requirements.
  • Documentation is provided with realistic lead time for processing.
  • A specific, responsive correction process exists for errors.

Common failure modes

  • Documentation is generic, leaving the patient to determine actual requirements.
  • Documentation arrives too close to travel dates for realistic processing.
  • Errors, when identified, take a long time to correct.

Worked example

In practice
A 12-room clinic receiving patients from four countries with different visa requirements.
BeforeVisa letters were written ad hoc by the international office when asked. Two patients had visas refused because the letter lacked the embassy's required elements. Turnaround was up to two weeks. Nobody had checked what each embassy actually required.
ActionThe international coordinator contacted the four relevant embassies and obtained their exact requirements. A template per embassy was created. A commitment was set: visa letter within three working days of request. A checklist was used before sending. The templates were reviewed annually.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the four templates, the embassy requirement documents, and a log showing 30 letters issued in three months, all within three days, no refusals attributed to letter deficiencies. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. List the countries your international patients come from.
  2. Contact each embassy and get their exact medical visa letter requirements in writing.
  3. Build a template per embassy.
  4. Commit to a turnaround time and track it.
The most common mistake: Writing a generic 'to whom it may concern' letter and assuming every embassy will accept it.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does the facility provide the specific documentation needed for medical visa applications, correctly and promptly? — Specific, correct documentation matched to actual requirements, not generic paperwork.
Evidence: Visa documentation record
2. Is documentation provided with enough lead time for realistic visa processing? — Genuine lead time, not documentation issued so late that delay becomes likely.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Is there a specific process for correcting a documentation error quickly if one is identified? — A specific, responsive process, not a slow, informal correction path.
Evidence: Documentation correction protocol

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Documentation is generally correct but not verified against the specific requirements of every relevant country. — Requirements genuinely vary by country, and a generic approach risks missing country-specific needs.
  • Lead time is adequate for common cases but not for countries with longer processing times. — Processing time varies significantly by country, and lead time should reflect the patient's actual situation.
  • A correction process exists but isn't clearly known to staff handling these requests.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current visa documentation practice for accuracy and lead time.
Week 2 Establish country-specific documentation checklists for common patient origins.
Week 3 Establish a specific, responsive correction process for documentation errors.
Ongoing Track visa-related delays and adjust lead time practice accordingly.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Documentation accuracy review Reviews visa and embassy documentation provided to a sample of international patients for correctness.
ASK Lead time interview Asks staff how far in advance documentation is typically provided relative to expected processing time.
DOCUMENT Correction process review Reviews the process for quickly correcting a documentation error if identified.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask for a real example of documentation provided for a specific country's requirements. — A real, specific example reveals genuine accuracy, not a generic template.
  • Ask what happens when a documentation error is discovered close to a travel date. — This reveals whether the correction process is genuinely responsive under real pressure.

Evidence base

[106] Medical travel facilitation literature identifies documentation delays and errors as a leading cause of care-seeking delay for international patients, with downstream clinical consequences for time-sensitive conditions.

ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →

Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.

24.7

International Patient Complaint and Redress Process

Non-Negotiable

International patients have access to a genuine complaint and redress process reachable from their home country, with real evidence complaints are addressed — not a process that functionally only works for a patient still physically present in the country.

In plain terms: International patients can complain and seek redress from their home country — and there is evidence that such complaints are genuinely addressed.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Full Full

Why this matters

A patient who flew home with a complication and a grievance is not going to fly back to file a complaint at the front desk. If the clinic's complaint process only works in person, international patients effectively have no complaint process. And a patient with no route to complaint becomes a patient who complains publicly — to the facilitator, on review sites, to their embassy. A working process means an email or web form, a response commitment, a named person, and — for disputes — a defined redress mechanism: a refund policy, a mediation route, or a stated arbitration process. The evidence required is that complaints have been received from abroad and resolved.

What good looks like

  • The complaint channel is genuinely reachable and usable from the patient's home country.
  • The channel is accessible in relevant languages, not only the local one.
  • Real, documented evidence shows complaints are genuinely addressed.

Common failure modes

  • The complaint process functionally requires physical presence or local language fluency.
  • No accommodation exists for patients who don't speak the local language.
  • No documented evidence exists that complaints from returned patients are addressed.

Worked example

In practice
A 14-room clinic whose complaints process was a form at reception.
BeforeNo international patient had ever formally complained — because there was no way to. The facilitator reported that two patients had complained to them about the clinic; the clinic had never heard about it. A review site showed three negative reviews from international patients, none of which the clinic had responded to.
ActionAn international complaints email and web form were created, in three languages. The international coordinator was named as the responsible person with a 5-day acknowledgement and 30-day resolution commitment. A redress policy was written: what triggers a refund, how disputes are escalated, and an external mediation option through the facilitator association. Review-site comments were monitored and responded to.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the log: 7 complaints from abroad in six months, all acknowledged and resolved, two with partial refunds. Reviewed the redress policy. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Try to complain about your clinic from abroad. Is it possible?
  2. Create an email and web form in your patients' languages.
  3. Name a person and set response times.
  4. Write a redress policy: when a refund applies, how disputes escalate.
The most common mistake: Reporting zero international complaints because there is no way to make one.

Self-assessment questions

1. Is there a specific complaint channel genuinely reachable from the patient's home country, not requiring physical presence? — Genuine remote accessibility, not a channel that functionally only works locally.
Evidence: Complaint channel documentation
2. Is the complaint channel accessible in relevant languages, not only the local language? — Genuine language accessibility, not a barrier that excludes exactly the patients most likely to need it.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Is there real, documented evidence that complaints from returned patients are actually addressed? — Genuine follow-through, not a channel that exists but produces no real response.
Evidence: Complaint resolution record

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • A remote complaint channel exists but response times are significantly slower than for local complaints. — A technically accessible channel that responds too slowly doesn't provide genuine redress.
  • The channel is accessible by email but not genuinely responsive to patients writing in other languages. — Technical accessibility without genuine language responsiveness doesn't achieve real access.
  • Complaints are received but resolution isn't consistently documented or communicated back to the patient.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current complaint channel for genuine remote and language accessibility.
Week 2 Establish or strengthen remote-accessible complaint intake in relevant languages.
Week 3 Establish documented resolution tracking with communication back to the patient.
Ongoing Track response times and resolution rates for international patient complaints specifically.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Complaint channel accessibility review Reviews whether the complaint channel is genuinely reachable and usable from abroad.
DOCUMENT Language accessibility review Reviews whether the complaint channel is accessible in relevant patient languages.
DOCUMENT Resolution record review Reviews documented evidence that complaints from returned patients are genuinely addressed.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask for a real example of a complaint received from a patient after they had already returned home. — A real example reveals whether the channel genuinely functions for exactly the patients who need it most.
  • Test the complaint channel's accessibility in a language other than the local one. — This directly reveals genuine language accessibility, not an assumption of it.

Evidence base

[107] Cross-border patient redress mechanisms are identified in international medical travel governance literature as a distinct requirement from domestic complaint processes, given the specific access barriers international patients face after returning home.

ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →

Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.

24.8

Facilitators and Agents Are Verified, Not Assumed Legitimate

Non-Negotiable

Any medical tourism facilitator or agent referring patients to this facility is specifically verified — real business registration, a real, checkable track record — with the verification documented, not accepted based on the volume of patients they refer or how professional their marketing appears.

In plain terms: Every medical tourism facilitator or agent who refers patients to the clinic is checked — real business registration, real track record — and the check is documented, not assumed.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Adapted Full

Why this matters

This is the ambulatory equivalent of hospital 8.8. A facilitator who promises patients results the clinic cannot deliver, hides commissions, or vanishes when a complication occurs, damages the clinic as much as the patient. Verification means: legal registration confirmed; references from other facilities; a signed agreement covering what they may promise, commission disclosure, and termination; and a file that shows the check was done. A clinic that accepts patients from unverified agents has outsourced its reputation to strangers.

What good looks like

  • Each facilitator is specifically verified for legitimate registration and track record.
  • Verification is documented and periodically reconfirmed.
  • A specific process reviews what facilitators actually represent to patients.

Common failure modes

  • Facilitators are accepted based on referral volume without specific verification.
  • Verification, if it happened, was never reconfirmed after initial acceptance.
  • No process exists to review what facilitators actually tell patients.

Worked example

In practice
An ambulatory surgical clinic receiving international patients through five agents.
BeforeAgents were engaged by phone. No registration was checked. One agent had told patients the clinic's surgeon was 'the best in Europe' and quoted prices 40% above the clinic's own. The clinic had no written agreement with any agent.
ActionAn agent verification standard was written: registration confirmed with the relevant authority; two references from other facilities; a signed agreement on permitted claims, commission disclosure, and termination; an annual review. All five agents were reviewed; one was terminated. Patients are given the clinic's own price list directly.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed four agent files with registration evidence, references, and signed agreements. Interviewed an international patient who confirmed receiving the clinic's direct price list. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. List every agent who sends you patients.
  2. For each, confirm legal registration and get two references.
  3. Sign a one-page agreement on claims and commissions.
  4. Give patients your price list directly.
The most common mistake: Assuming an agent who has sent patients for years is legitimate — longevity is not verification.

Self-assessment questions

1. Is each facilitator or agent specifically verified for legitimate business registration and a checkable track record? — Genuine, specific verification, not accepted based on referral volume or marketing professionalism alone.
Evidence: Facilitator verification record
2. Is verification documented and periodically reconfirmed, not done once and assumed to remain valid indefinitely? — An active, periodically reconfirmed process, not a one-time check.
Evidence: Periodic reconfirmation record
3. Is there a specific process for reviewing what a facilitator actually tells patients about this facility? — Active oversight of facilitator representations, not an assumption they accurately represent the facility.
Evidence: Facilitator representation review process

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Verification happens for new facilitator relationships but isn't reconfirmed for long-standing ones. — A facilitator's legitimacy and practices can change over time even after an initial, valid verification.
  • Verification covers business registration but not the accuracy of their patient-facing representations. — A legitimately registered facilitator can still misrepresent risks or outcomes to patients.
  • Patients occasionally arrive with expectations that don't match what the facility actually offers.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current facilitator relationships for specific verification versus assumed legitimacy.
Week 2 Establish or strengthen documented verification for every facilitator relationship.
Week 3 Build a periodic reconfirmation schedule and a process for reviewing facilitator representations.
Ongoing Review patient expectations against facility reality as an indicator of facilitator accuracy.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Facilitator verification review Reviews verification records for business registration and track record for each facilitator.
DOCUMENT Reconfirmation schedule review Reviews whether verification is periodically reconfirmed, not a one-time check.
ASK Representation review interview Asks staff how they review what facilitators actually tell patients about the facility.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask for the actual verification record for a specific, named facilitator. — A specific, documented record is the real evidence of genuine verification, not assumed legitimacy.
  • Ask a recent international patient what they were told by their facilitator before arrival. — This reveals whether facilitator representations actually match facility reality.

Evidence base

[108] Medical tourism governance literature consistently identifies unregulated facilitator and agent networks as a distinct risk category, separate from the clinical quality of the treating facility itself.

ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →

Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.

24.9

Travel-Associated Infection Risk Protocol

Non-Negotiable

International patients are assessed for travel-associated infection risk specific to their journey and country of origin, with appropriate screening and precautions applied — not treated identically to a local patient with no recent travel history.

In plain terms: International patients are assessed for infection risks specific to where they came from and how they travelled — and screened or isolated accordingly.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Full Full

Why this matters

A patient arriving from a region with endemic MDR-TB, or who spent 20 hours in transit, or who was recently in a clinic in a country with high carbapenem-resistant organism rates, carries risks the domestic registration process does not consider. Failing to screen means the patient may be placed in a shared bay, may infect other patients, and may have their own surgery complicated by an unrecognised infection. A short travel-risk assessment at registration — where from, recent clinicisation abroad, symptoms, vaccination status — with a defined response (screening swabs, isolation pending results) is standard infection control practice for any facility receiving international patients.

What good looks like

  • International patients undergo a specific, distinct travel-associated infection risk assessment.
  • The assessment reflects the patient's specific country of origin and travel history.
  • Appropriate precautions are genuinely applied based on the assessment.

Common failure modes

  • International patients are assessed identically to local patients with no travel-specific step.
  • The assessment is generic, not reflecting the patient's actual journey.
  • Precautions are documented but not genuinely applied in practice.

Worked example

In practice
A 16-room clinic receiving patients from three regions with high antimicrobial resistance rates.
BeforeInternational patients were admitted like domestic patients. No travel history was taken. A patient from a region with high CRE prevalence was placed in a four-bed bay; CRE was later isolated from a wound and from two other patients in the bay. Infection control had no travel-risk protocol.
ActionA travel-risk screen was added to international registration: country of origin, clinicisation abroad in the last 12 months, TB symptoms, recent antibiotic use. Patients from defined high-risk regions or with recent foreign clinicisation are swabbed for MDR organisms and isolated in a single room pending results. A regional risk list is maintained by infection control and updated annually.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 20 international registrations: all screened; 6 isolated pending swabs, 1 positive and managed appropriately. Reviewed the risk list. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Add four questions to international registration: origin, foreign clinicisation, TB symptoms, recent antibiotics.
  2. Define which answers trigger screening swabs and isolation.
  3. Ensure single-room capacity for pending-result isolation.
  4. Ask infection control to maintain a regional risk list.
The most common mistake: Admitting international patients through the domestic pathway with no travel history — the risk is not visible until it has spread.

Self-assessment questions

1. Are international patients specifically assessed for travel-associated infection risk, not treated identically to local patients? — A specific, distinct assessment step, not folded into or skipped within general intake.
Evidence: Travel-associated infection risk assessment
2. Does the assessment account for the patient's specific country of origin and recent travel history? — Specific to this patient's actual journey, not a generic travel question.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Are appropriate precautions applied based on the assessment, not just documented without changing practice? — Genuine, applied precautions, not an assessment that doesn't change anything.
Evidence: Precaution application record

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • The assessment happens for surgical procedures but not consistently for other invasive procedures. — Travel-associated infection risk applies to any procedure carrying genuine infection exposure, not surgery alone.
  • Country of origin is recorded but not specifically used to inform the risk assessment. — Recorded information that doesn't inform the actual assessment provides no real protective value.
  • Precautions are identified but application is inconsistent across different staff.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current intake practice for a specific travel-associated infection risk step.
Week 2 Build a structured assessment reflecting country of origin and travel history.
Week 3 Establish consistent application of indicated precautions across all staff.
Ongoing Audit assessment completion and precaution application for international patients.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Risk assessment review Reviews records for a specific, distinct travel-associated infection risk assessment.
DOCUMENT Assessment specificity review Reviews whether assessment content reflects the patient's specific country of origin and travel history.
OBSERVE Precaution application check Checks whether precautions indicated by the assessment are genuinely applied in practice.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask to see the specific travel-associated risk assessment for a recent international patient. — A specific, real example reveals whether this is genuine practice, not just a policy statement.
  • Ask staff how the assessment differs for patients from different countries of origin. — A specific, informed answer reveals genuine understanding, not a generic infection-control response.

Evidence base

[109] Travel-associated antimicrobial resistance and infection risk is a documented, distinct category in infection prevention literature, with international medical travel specifically identified as a transmission risk pathway requiring targeted screening protocols.

ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →

Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.

24.10

Post-Procedure Travel Timing and Venous Thromboembolism Risk

Non-Negotiable

Every international patient receives a specific, documented discussion of safe travel timing after their procedure — including the elevated blood clot risk from combining recent surgery with air travel — not a general assumption that the patient will figure out when it is safe to fly.

In plain terms: Every international patient gets a specific conversation about when it is safe to fly home — and about the raised blood clot risk from surgery plus long travel.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Full Full

Why this matters

A patient who has just had a hip replacement, a caesarean, or major abdominal surgery, then sits immobile in an aircraft for eight hours, has a substantially elevated risk of a blood clot in the leg that can travel to the lung and kill. This is well documented and almost entirely preventable: wait a defined period before flying, take the prescribed anticoagulant, wear compression stockings, walk during the flight. Yet many clinics discharge international patients without mentioning it, because the flight is 'the patient's business.' It is not. A documented conversation — with the minimum wait, the prophylaxis plan, and the in-flight precautions — is the clinic's responsibility.

What good looks like

  • Every international patient receives a specific, documented travel timing discussion.
  • The discussion specifically names blood clot risk, not general recovery advice alone.
  • Patients can explain back the specific recommended timing for their own procedure.

Common failure modes

  • Travel timing is left to general recovery instructions without specific discussion.
  • Blood clot risk isn't specifically named or explained.
  • Patients cannot describe any specific recommended timing.

Worked example

In practice
A 14-room clinic performing orthopaedic surgery on patients who fly home within days.
BeforeFlight timing was the patient's decision. Patients booked return flights before surgery, often for two days after discharge. No VTE conversation was documented. Two international patients had developed pulmonary emboli after flying home in the previous year; the clinic learned of one through a lawyer.
ActionA post-procedure travel protocol was written per procedure type: minimum days before flying, anticoagulation to continue through travel, compression stockings, in-flight mobility instructions. The conversation is documented in a specific discharge section and the patient signs. Patients are advised at the estimate stage (8.1) not to book return flights until the surgeon confirms.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 15 international discharges: all had the travel timing section completed and signed, with anticoagulation and stockings prescribed. No VTE events in the following six months. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Ask the last five international patients how many days after surgery they flew home.
  2. Write a minimum wait per procedure with your surgeons.
  3. Add a travel timing section to international discharge with a signature.
  4. Tell patients at booking not to fix their return flight until cleared.
The most common mistake: Treating the flight home as the patient's decision when the clot risk is a direct consequence of the surgery you performed.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does every international patient receive a specific, documented discussion of safe travel timing for their specific procedure? — A specific, procedure-appropriate discussion, not a generic travel disclaimer.
Evidence: Travel timing discussion documentation
2. Is the discussion specific to blood clot risk from combining this procedure with air travel, not general recovery advice? — The specific risk named directly, not folded into general aftercare instructions.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Can the patient explain back the recommended minimum time before flying, specific to their own procedure? — Tests genuine understanding specific to this patient, not general awareness that travel timing matters.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • The discussion happens for major procedures but is abbreviated for shorter or perceived lower-risk ones. — Even shorter procedures combined with long-haul travel carry genuine, documented risk.
  • Timing is mentioned but the specific reasoning behind it isn't explained. — Understanding why matters for a patient weighing their own travel decision against the recommendation.
  • The discussion happens but isn't documented, relying on staff memory that it occurred.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current practice for specific, documented travel timing discussion.
Week 2 Build a specific, procedure-appropriate travel timing script into pre-departure counselling.
Week 3 Establish documentation confirming the discussion occurred for every international patient.
Ongoing Spot-check patient understanding of their specific recommended timing.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Travel timing documentation review Reviews records for a specific, procedure-appropriate travel timing discussion.
OBSERVE Discussion specificity observation Observes whether the discussion specifically names blood clot risk, not general recovery advice alone.
ASK Patient understanding check Asks a patient to explain back the recommended travel timing specific to their procedure.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask an international patient directly what they were told about travel timing. — This tests actual understanding, not just that a conversation is assumed to have occurred.
  • Check documentation for a shorter, perceived lower-risk procedure specifically. — This is where the discussion most commonly gets abbreviated or skipped.

Evidence base

[110] Established international travel health guidance recommends against air travel for 10-14 days following major surgery given the combined risk of surgery and air travel for blood clots, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →

Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.

← Ambulatory Clinic Standards — all standards
Self-assess against these criteria →
← Standard 23 — Pediatric Ambulatory Care
Standard 25 — Refugee & Migrant Health →
© 2026 Accréditation Sans Frontières · PHIG · Sheni Network