Report a Concern or Complaint
Anyone — patient, family member, staff, regulator, or member of the public — can submit a concern about an ASF-accredited facility or about ASF itself. Identity is protected. Every substantive concern is investigated.
Managed by the Patient and Public Council — not by ASF operations. This structural separation means the body that receives and reviews concerns about accredited facilities is independent of the body that runs the accreditation process. Concerns about ASF staff or governance are reviewed directly by the Board Chair.
What You Can Report
Concern about an accredited facility
You believe a facility currently holding ASF accreditation or certification does not meet the standards it is certified against — based on your experience as a patient, visitor, staff member, or regulator.
Examples: infection control failures, falsified records, misrepresentation of accreditation status, patient safety incidents not reported to ASF.
Concern about a Monitor or Coordinator
You believe a certified Monitor or Coordinator has signed off an inaccurate verification, has a conflict of interest they have not declared, or has behaved unprofessionally in their ASF role.
Examples: verifying criteria without checking evidence, certifying a facility employing a relative, pressuring staff to alter records.
Concern about an ASF process or decision
You believe ASF made a procedural error in an accreditation decision, applied standards inconsistently, or failed to follow its own published process.
This is distinct from an appeal — see the appeals process if you are appealing a specific accreditation decision.
Concern about ASF governance or staff
You believe ASF itself has acted in breach of its constitutional protections, published policies, or governance commitments — including conflicts of interest at Board or ADC level.
These concerns are reviewed by the Board Chair independently of ASF operations.
What Happens After You Submit
Acknowledgement within 5 working days
You receive confirmation that your concern has been received and an initial assessment of whether it falls within ASF’s jurisdiction. Anonymous concerns receive no direct acknowledgement but are reviewed on the same basis.
Initial review within 15 working days
The Patient and Public Council secretariat reviews the concern against publicly available evidence and the facility’s most recent accreditation file. For concerns about Monitors or ASF processes, the ADC secretariat conducts the review.
Investigation decision
Three outcomes: (a) Substantive concern — triggers unannounced re-verification of the facility by an ASF-appointed Monitor, not the facility’s own Monitor; (b) Noted concern — recorded and factored into the next scheduled review; (c) Outside jurisdiction — referred to the relevant regulator or closed with explanation.
Resolution and response within 30 days
You receive a response explaining what was found and what action was taken, subject to what can be disclosed without breaching third-party confidentiality. The aggregate annual outcome is published in the accountability report.
Public registry update
If re-verification confirms a significant failure, the facility’s accreditation status is updated on the public registry. Downgradings are published — not hidden.
Submit Your Concern
If you are a patient in immediate danger, contact the national emergency services or the national healthcare regulator directly — do not use this form. ASF is an accreditation body, not a regulatory authority, and cannot take emergency action.
Minimum 100 characters. You do not need to prove your concern — that is ASF’s job. You need to describe it specifically enough that we know what to investigate.
Anonymous concerns are reviewed on exactly the same basis as identified concerns. Providing your contact details allows us to ask follow-up questions and send you a response.
To submit your concern, email info@accreditation.ge with the information above. A secure online submission form is in development.
Protections for Reporters
- No retaliation: Any accredited facility found to have taken action against a person for submitting a concern immediately faces accreditation review. This applies to employment decisions, contractual penalties, and informal pressure.
- Confidentiality: Your identity is not shared with the facility under investigation unless you consent or it becomes necessary for the investigation and you have been informed.
- Anonymous reporting: Anonymous concerns receive the same substantive review as identified concerns. You will not receive a response, but your concern is investigated on its merits.
- No fee: Submitting a concern is always free.
Appeals vs Complaints
| Complaint / Concern | Appeal | |
|---|---|---|
| Who submits | Anyone — patient, public, staff, regulator | The facility that received the accreditation decision |
| About what | A facility’s conduct, a Monitor’s conduct, or ASF’s process | A specific accreditation decision (Not Accredited or Deferred) |
| Reviewed by | Patient and Public Council / ADC | Independent appeals panel (3 members, none from original panel) |
| Scope | Substantive — what actually happened at the facility | Procedural — whether the correct process was followed |
| Timeline | Response within 30 days | Decision within 60 days |
| Where | This page | ADC Governance → |
