Client and Facility Management
How ASF develops its accreditation programmes, manages its relationship with facilities, and runs the survey process itself. Owner: ASF Secretariat.
Programme development
Each new ASF accreditation module (Hospital, Ambulatory, LTC, etc.) is developed in response to an identified need — a gap in facilities major accreditors do not reach, consistent with ASF’s mission (ASF-POL-50) — considering WHO guidance and other international health priorities where relevant, and assessed for feasibility before development begins, through the Five-Stage Development Process.
Outsourcing
ASF does not outsource its evaluation activity (Coordinator evidence review, Monitor verification, ADC decisions) to another organisation. GMJ Academy is a training delivery partner, not an evaluation body, and is governed as a key supplier under ASF-POL-19.
Applicant suitability and the client register
A facility applying for ASF accreditation is screened for suitability — facility type matches an ASF module, sanctions screening (ASF-POL-25) — before entering the quarterly cycle. ASF maintains a client register of every facility in or having completed the accreditation process, feeding the public accredited-facilities register described in ASF-POL-22.
Client information and agreement
A facility entering the ASF accreditation process receives full information on the process and timeline, and formally agrees to comply with ASF’s requirements, provide access to documentation and staff for Monitor verification, and use its accreditation status accurately (ASF-POL-22). Relationships recognise each facility’s specific context — the Crisis/Transitional classification already built into the continuous-engagement model (Standards Development) exists for exactly this reason — through a named Coordinator/Monitor point of contact.
Education, information, and feedback
ASF standards, guidance, and self-assessment tools are published free of charge (ASF-IP-001-v1) and designed to help a facility prepare, consistent with impartiality (ASF-POL-48) — this assistance is generic guidance, never a client-specific solution (the consultancy separation in ASF-POL-42). Feedback on these materials is sought from Coordinators and facilities at least annually, and used to improve them, feeding the Quality Improvement process (ASF-POL-52).
Verification team selection and planning
A Monitor is assigned to match the facility’s type and classification, avoiding any declared conflict (ASF-MON-STD-v1, Standard A3). The assigned Monitor’s name and professional background are shared with the facility in advance; the facility may raise an objection on conflict-of-interest grounds, reviewed under ASF-POL-48. Pre-survey documentation requirements (what the facility should have ready) are communicated with enough lead time before the full in-facility verification for the facility to prepare. The full in-facility verification is scheduled transparently and agreed with the facility in advance (ASF-MON-STD-v1, Standard B2), using the documented verification tools and criterion sign-off method in ASF-MON-STD-v1, Standard B3. At the close of the full in-facility verification, the Monitor gives the facility a verbal debrief of key findings before leaving — what went well and what needs attention — so nothing in the eventual written decision is a surprise.
Reporting
The Monitor’s verification record and the ADC’s written decision together constitute the survey report, and state: the verification dates, the Monitor’s name, the facility and modules assessed, the standard edition used, the findings per Standard/criterion, and the decision outcome with reasons (ASF-POL-22). The facility reviews the record for factual accuracy before the decision is finalised, consistent with the dispute pathway in ASF-MON-STD-v1, Standard B4.