The Accreditation Decision Committee
The ADC makes all formal accreditation decisions. It receives supervisor recommendations and decides independently. It is structurally separate from ASF operations — its chair is elected by its members, not appointed by ASF leadership.
The key principle: The organisation that runs the accreditation process does not make the accreditation decision. This separation — between the assessment function and the certification function — is the structural guarantee of independence.
Composition
| Rule | Detail |
|---|---|
| Pool size | Minimum 15 members; each decision panel 5–7 members by rotation |
| Independence majority | Majority must have no current employment or financial relationship with ASF |
| Clinical expertise | At least one member with clinical background relevant to the facility type under review |
| Exclusions | No active ASF supervisor, Coordinator, or Monitor may sit on the ADC |
| Chair | Elected by ADC members — not appointed by ASF leadership |
| Terms | 3 years, maximum 2 consecutive terms |
| Remuneration | Published rate — transparent, not discretionary |
Voting Thresholds
The thresholds are asymmetric by design. It is easier to grant accreditation than to deny it — protecting facilities from single-member bias or procedural failure in the negative direction.
| Decision | Required majority | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Accredited | Simple majority | Grant of recognition should not require unanimity |
| Conditionally Accredited | Simple majority | Standard decision threshold |
| Deferred | Simple majority | Standard decision threshold |
| Not Accredited | Two-thirds majority | Protects against single-member bias or personal animosity |
| Revocation | Two-thirds majority + mandatory notification & minimum 30-day response period | Highest consequence — highest threshold. The facility receives written notice and has a minimum of 30 days to respond before revocation takes effect. |
The ADC Override
The ADC can commission an independent re-verification by an ASF-appointed Monitor — not the facility’s own Monitor — if it has substantive doubt about the full verification report. Cost allocation:
- If re-verification confirms the original full verification report: ASF bears the cost
- If re-verification finds significant discrepancies: facility bears the cost, and Monitor credential under review
Appeals
A facility that receives a Not Accredited or Deferred decision may appeal. The appeals process is independent of the original decision panel.
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Appeals panel | 3 members, none from the original decision panel |
| Scope of review | Process compliance only — not a re-assessment of clinical merit |
| Timeline | Decision within 60 days of appeal submission |
| Finality | Final — no further internal appeal |
| External review | Independent judicial or regulatory review may be sought by either party under applicable national law |