Defence FAQ
ASF has thought harder about the weaknesses of this model than any external critic will. These are the principal attacks anticipated — and our published responses.
“One day is not enough to assess patient safety”
The JCI model uses the survey visit as primary evidence-gathering. ASF uses it as final verification of evidence gathered across 12 months. By visit day the supervisor has four quarterly submissions, two Monitor reports, a complete Q4 in-facility verification, and a documented Improvement Plan. Structurally identical to ISO 9001 certification auditing — the most widely used quality standard in history.
“Your Monitor is paid by the facility”
Every financial audit in the world uses a client-pays model. The profession solved this through: auditor certification with professional liability, mandatory rotation, and regulatory oversight of auditors. ASF applies all three. Additionally, 5% of facilities per year receive random unannounced re-verification by an ASF-appointed Monitor independent of the facility’s own Monitor.
“Your standards have not been independently validated”
Every ASF criterion cites its evidence source — JCI measurable element, WHO patient safety priority, Accreditation Canada ROP, or peer-reviewed study. An external Clinical Advisory Panel of named independent experts reviews all criteria before launch and at each revision. Their full assessment is published. Pilot cohort outcomes are independently evaluated and published in a peer-reviewed journal.
“You are not ISQua EEA accredited — therefore not legitimate”
ISQua EEA holds no intergovernmental mandate. Its board answers to fee-paying subscribers, not states. The minimum four-year cost for a Georgian non-profit is €40,513 against a 5.7:1 income gap where the fee ratio is only 1.3:1 — documented in: doi:10.66636/gmj.v1.i3.a205. ASF’s legitimacy rests on transparency of its standards, independence of its decision structure, and verifiability of its outcomes — all publicly auditable.
“96 criteria are insufficient for a complex hospital”
The number of criteria is not the measure of rigour — it is the measure of burden. Denmark’s DDKM had 570 indicators and was terminated because the burden was unsustainable. ASF’s 96 criteria represent the intersection of what all major bodies agree is foundational. The model is progressive: cycle 2 builds depth, ISO modules extend coverage.
“What prevents ASF from becoming what it criticises?”
Seven constitutional provisions written into ASF’s founding statutes. Not policies — statutory constraints. Read them here →
Have a critique not answered here? Send it to info@accreditation.ge. We respond publicly and, if substantive, improve the model.
