EDITIONEN·FR·ქართ
ASF Logo

Accréditation Sans Frontières

International Accreditation of Healthcare Facilities

Start accreditation  

Accréditation Sans Frontières · ASF Health Standards 9.0

Standard 25 · Home Care

45 criteria · optional module (declare to apply)

Optional module (declare to apply). 45 criteria, of which 29 non-negotiable. Each criterion is numbered 25.Y, with its classification and verification questions.

Criteria

25.1 The Client's Home Remains Theirs to Control

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Care is delivered in recognition that this is the client's own home, not the provider's space — the client's own household routines, possessions, and living arrangements are respected, not overridden or rearranged for the caregiver's own convenience.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does the caregiver respect the client's own household routines and living arrangements?
    Routines and arrangements belong to the client, not the caregiver's preferences.
  2. Is the client's personal property treated with care, not handled carelessly or without permission?
    Personal property belongs to the client and is treated accordingly.
  3. Does the client retain control over decisions about their own household, not deferred to the caregiver's preferences?
    Decisions about the home stay with the client.

25.2 A Written Statement of Rights Is Provided and Understood

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Every client receives a written statement of their rights before care begins, read aloud to them in a language they understand if they cannot read it themselves — not care beginning before this understanding is confirmed.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does every client receive a written statement of rights before care begins?
    Each client receives the statement before care starts.
  2. Is this statement read aloud, in a language the client understands, when they cannot read it themselves?
    The statement is read aloud when a client cannot read it.
  3. Can the client explain back at least some of their own rights, not just confirm receiving a document?
    Understanding shown by explanation, not only by a signed receipt.

25.3 The Client Can Request a Caregiver Replacement

CORE

A client can request a different caregiver when the current relationship is not working well for them, with a respectful process for making this request — not locked into a single caregiver relationship they are uncomfortable with, and not made to feel this request will trigger conflict or reduced care quality.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Can a client request a different caregiver, with a known process for doing so?
    A known, usable process for asking for a different caregiver.
  2. Is this request handled respectfully, without the client fearing conflict or reduced care quality as a result?
    A request for a change should never be penalised.
  3. Is a replacement practically arranged within a reasonable timeframe, not left unresolved indefinitely?
    A replacement arranged promptly, so the client is not left without care.

25.4 A Reachable Alternate Contact Exists Beyond the Caregiver Themselves

NON-NEGOTIABLE

The client has a known way to reach the agency or a supervisor directly, separate from the caregiver — reachable at any time care might occur, not limited to standard business hours.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does the client have a known way to reach the agency or a supervisor, separate from the caregiver?
    A route to the agency or a supervisor that does not run through the caregiver.
  2. Is this contact reachable at any time care might occur, not limited to standard business hours?
    A route that works outside business hours, when care happens.
  3. Does the client know this contact exists and how to use it, not merely told once at intake?
    Clients need to know the contact exists and how to use it.

25.5 Freedom From Abuse and Neglect Is Actively Verified

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Freedom from physical, verbal, emotional, and sexual abuse, and from neglect, is actively verified through periodic check-ins independent of the caregiver — not simply stated as a right on a document and otherwise assumed absent good reason to suspect a problem.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Is freedom from abuse and neglect actively verified through periodic independent check-ins?
    Verification through check-ins, not an assumption of safety.
  2. Are these check-ins conducted separate from the caregiver, not observed or overheard by them?
    Check-ins done without the caregiver present, so clients can speak freely.
  3. Is there a specific, defined response process if a check-in reveals a concern?
    A defined response, so that a concern leads to action.

25.6 Background Screening Uses Verified Identity, Not Name-Based Matching Alone

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Every caregiver undergoes a criminal record check verified against a unique identifier — fingerprint, national identity number, or another reliable biometric or official record — not a name-based search alone, which can miss disqualifying history recorded under a different or misspelled name, or fail to distinguish between people who share a common name.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does every caregiver undergo a criminal record check verified against a unique identifier, not a name-based search alone?
    A unique identifier avoids mistaken matches and missed records.
  2. Is this screening completed before the caregiver has any unsupervised access to a client?
    Screening completed before any unsupervised access to a client.
  3. Does the check draw on the most complete official record available in this jurisdiction, not a partial or limited search?
    The most complete official record, not a partial search.

25.7 Abuse Registries Are Checked in Every Jurisdiction the Caregiver Has Worked

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Where a national, regional, or local abuse and neglect registry exists, it is checked for every jurisdiction where the caregiver has previously worked, not only their current place of residence.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Are relevant abuse registries checked for every jurisdiction the caregiver has worked?
    Every jurisdiction where the caregiver has worked is checked.
  2. Is prior work history specifically obtained to identify which jurisdictions require checking?
    Work history is the basis for knowing which registries to check.
  3. Is there a process for verifying the caregiver's stated work history, not accepted on self-report alone?
    Self-reported history needs to be verified.

25.8 Any National Care-Worker Exclusion Registry Is Specifically Checked

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Where a national or regional registry exists that specifically bars individuals from care-related work due to substantiated misconduct — distinct from a general criminal record — every caregiver is specifically checked against it, not assumed covered by a general criminal background check alone; where no such registry exists in this jurisdiction, the service verifies this history through the most reliable alternative available, such as direct verification with prior care-sector employers.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Where a national care-worker exclusion registry exists, is every caregiver specifically checked against it?
    Specific checking against any national exclusion registry.
  2. Where no such registry exists, is an alternative verification effort made?
    An alternative route where no registry exists, such as prior employer references.
  3. Is this check repeated periodically, not limited to a one-time check at hire?
    Repeated checks, not a single check at hire.

25.9 Screening Is Repeated Periodically

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Background screening is repeated on a periodic, defined schedule for every active caregiver — not treated as a one-time check completed at initial hire and never revisited.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Is background screening repeated on a periodic, defined schedule for every active caregiver?
    Periodic, defined rescreening for every active caregiver.
  2. Does rescreening cover the same comprehensive scope as initial screening, not an abbreviated check?
    Rescreening that is as thorough as the first check.
  3. Is there a specific, defined response if rescreening reveals a new disqualifying finding?
    A defined response to a new finding.

25.10 A Disqualifying Finding Triggers Individualised Assessment

CORE

A criminal history finding triggers an individualised assessment of its actual relevance to caregiving work — not an automatic, blanket rejection applied regardless of the finding's nature, age, or relevance to the specific role.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does a criminal history finding trigger an individualised assessment, not an automatic blanket rejection?
    Individual assessment before any decision on a finding.
  2. Does this assessment consider the nature, age, and relevance of the finding to caregiving specifically?
    The nature, age and relevance of the finding decide its weight.
  3. Is the assessment process itself consistently applied, not varying arbitrarily between different candidates?
    Consistency across candidates, so decisions are fair.

25.11 A Structured Home Safety Assessment Occurs Before Care Begins

NON-NEGOTIABLE

A structured home safety assessment — covering flooring, lighting, stairs, bathroom hazards, and clear pathways — is conducted before care begins, not assumed adequate from a general first impression of the home.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does a structured home safety assessment occur before care begins, not a general impression alone?
    A structured assessment, not a general impression.
  2. Does this assessment cover flooring, lighting, stairs, bathroom hazards, and clear pathways specifically?
    The specific hazards that matter in a home.
  3. Is the assessment completed by someone trained to recognise these specific hazards, not left to informal observation?
    Assessors trained to recognise hazards, not informal observation.

25.12 Identified Hazards Lead to Tracked Remediation

NON-NEGOTIABLE

A hazard identified during home safety assessment leads to tracked remediation — a specific action taken, a specific person responsible, a specific timeframe — not a hazard noted on a checklist and then left unaddressed.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does an identified hazard lead to tracked remediation, not a checklist item left unaddressed?
    Hazards lead to action, not a checklist entry.
  2. Is a specific person and timeframe assigned to each identified hazard, not left informally open-ended?
    Ownership and deadlines for every hazard.
  3. Is remediation verified as completed, not assumed done without confirmation?
    Verified completion, not assumed completion.

25.13 A Fall Triggers Reassessment

NON-NEGOTIABLE

When a client experiences a fall, this triggers a specific, structured reassessment of the home environment and the client's own risk factors — not treated as an isolated event requiring only immediate first aid.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does a client fall trigger a structured reassessment, not treated as an isolated event?
    A fall leads to a structured review, not only first aid.
  2. Does reassessment cover both the home environment and the client's own risk factors?
    Both the home and the client's health are reassessed after a fall.
  3. Does reassessment happen promptly after the fall, not delayed to a routine review?
    Reassessment soon after the fall, not at the next routine visit.

25.14 The Home Environment Is Reassessed Periodically

CORE

The home environment is reassessed on a periodic, defined schedule, not limited to the initial assessment at the start of care, because a home's physical condition and hazard profile can change over the course of an ongoing care relationship.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Is the home reassessed on a periodic schedule, not limited to initial assessment?
    Homes change over time, so reassessment is scheduled.
  2. Does the caregiver's regular presence inform this reassessment?
    The caregiver sees changes that a periodic visit may miss.
  3. Is a change in the home's condition captured between scheduled reassessments?
    Changes between reviews are recorded and acted on.

25.15 Emergency Access to the Home Is Confirmed

NON-NEGOTIABLE

A verified plan exists for how emergency responders would access the home if the client is unable to reach the door — a lockbox code, a designated key holder, a specific access arrangement — not assumed that responders will simply find a way in when the moment arrives.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does a verified emergency access plan exist for this home?
    A written, checked plan for emergency entry.
  2. Is this plan known to the client, family, and caregiver?
    Everyone who may need the plan knows it exists.
  3. Is the access arrangement, such as a key safe or entry code, verified as working before the first visit and after any change?
    An access arrangement that fails on the day leaves the caregiver unable to reach the client.

25.16 Medication Reminders and Administration Are Distinguished

NON-NEGOTIABLE

The service distinguishes between medication reminders, which a non-clinical caregiver can appropriately provide, and actual medication administration, which requires clinical training and appropriate supervision — not conflating the two, or allowing a non-clinical caregiver to perform tasks beyond their actual scope.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does the service distinguish reminders from administration, matching the caregiver's actual scope?
    Reminders and administration are different tasks with different requirements.
  2. Are non-clinical caregivers specifically trained on this medication boundary?
    Caregivers are trained to know where their task stops.
  3. Is there a process for identifying when a client's needs exceed a non-clinical caregiver's scope?
    A route to a clinician when needs go beyond the caregiver's role.

25.17 A Single, Current Medication List Is Shared Across Everyone Involved

NON-NEGOTIABLE

A single, current medication list is actively shared across everyone involved in the client's care — the caregiver, family members, and any other provider — not maintained separately by each party in a way that allows the same medication task to be missed by everyone, or duplicated by more than one.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does a single, current medication list exist and get actively shared across everyone involved in care?
    One current list, shared with everyone who gives care.
  2. Is this list updated immediately when a medication changes, not left outdated until a routine review?
    An outdated list is a risk at every visit.
  3. Do all parties
    caregiver, family, other providers — know this shared list exists and where to find it? — Everyone involved knows the list exists and where it is.

25.18 A Medication Change or Care Transition Triggers Structured Review

NON-NEGOTIABLE

A medication change or a care transition — hospital discharge, a new prescriber, a change in caregiver — triggers a structured review of the client's complete medication regimen, not treated as a routine update folded into ordinary care without specific, dedicated attention.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does a medication change or care transition trigger a structured review, not folded into routine care?
    Changes and transitions get dedicated review, not routine handling.
  2. Does this review confirm the current medication list and check for confusing instructions?
    Conflicting instructions are found and removed at review.
  3. Is the caregiver's actual understanding of the new or changed regimen verified, not assumed?
    Understanding shown in practice, not assumed from a handover.

25.19 Medications Belonging to Different Household Members Are Distinguished and Secured

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Medications belonging to different people in the household are physically distinguished and securely stored separately — not left commingled in a way that risks a client taking another person's medication, a documented error type in home medication management.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Are medications belonging to different household members physically distinguished and stored separately?
    Each person's medicines are kept apart.
  2. Is secure storage used, not just physical separation without any restricted access?
    Separation alone does not prevent a wrong dose being taken.
  3. Has the household been assessed for this specific risk, not assumed low-risk without checking?
    The household's risk is checked, not assumed.

25.20 A Missed or Uncertain Dose Is Actively Followed Up

CORE

When a dose is missed, or it is uncertain whether it was taken, this is actively, specifically followed up — not left unresolved on the assumption that a single missed or uncertain dose does not warrant attention.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does a missed or uncertain dose receive active, specific follow-up, not left unresolved?
    A missed dose is followed up until it is resolved.
  2. Is there a specific process for determining what to do when a dose was missed?
    A defined process for deciding the next step.
  3. Are recurring missed or uncertain doses reviewed for a broader pattern, not treated as isolated incidents each time?
    Repeated missed doses can signal a wider problem.

25.21 A Risk Assessment of the Home Occurs Before the First Visit

NON-NEGOTIABLE

A risk assessment of the client's home and household — including household members, pets, and known environmental hazards — occurs before a caregiver's first visit, not left for the caregiver to discover in time upon arrival.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does a risk assessment of the home and household occur before the caregiver's first visit?
    Risk is assessed before the first visit.
  2. Does this assessment specifically address household members, pets, and known environmental hazards?
    Household members, animals and hazards are all covered.
  3. Is the caregiver briefed on identified risks before their first visit, not left to encounter them unprepared?
    The caregiver knows the risks before arriving.

25.22 A Workplace Violence Prevention Programme Exists, Adapted for the Home Setting

NON-NEGOTIABLE

A workplace violence prevention programme exists, specifically adapted for the reality of a caregiver working alone in a private home — not a generic facility-based programme applied without adaptation, and not assumed unnecessary because violence seems unlikely in this specific client relationship.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does a workplace violence prevention programme exist, specifically adapted for the home care setting?
    A violence prevention programme designed for work in a private home.
  2. Does this programme address the specific reality of a caregiver working alone, without on-site colleagues?
    A caregiver working alone faces risks that colleagues would share.
  3. Are caregivers trained on this programme, not assuming general awareness of workplace safety is sufficient?
    Caregivers are trained on the programme itself.

25.23 The Caregiver Has a Way to Signal Distress Discreetly

NON-NEGOTIABLE

The caregiver has a practical way to signal distress or request help during a visit — without alerting anyone present in the home that they have done so — not left with no option beyond openly announcing they feel unsafe in the moment they most need discretion.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does the caregiver have a practical way to discreetly signal distress or request help?
    A way to ask for help that does not alert the household.
  2. Is this mechanism known and practised by the caregiver, not merely described in a policy document?
    The caregiver knows how to use it.
  3. Is there a defined response when this signal is triggered, not a signal that goes unanswered?
    A defined response to every signal.

25.24 Hostile Animals and Environmental Hazards Are Specifically Assessed

CORE

Hostile or unpredictable animals, along with other environmental hazards specific to home-based work — poor lighting, unsafe walking conditions, extreme temperature — are specifically assessed for each home, not overlooked as a lesser concern compared with interpersonal risk.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Are hostile or unpredictable animals specifically assessed for each home, not overlooked?
    Animals are assessed in each home.
  2. Are other environmental hazards, such as lighting, walking conditions and temperature, specifically assessed?
    Hazards specific to home-based work are assessed, not only interpersonal risk.
  3. Does an identified hazard lead to a specific accommodation or precaution, not simply noted without resulting action?
    An identified hazard leads to a specific precaution.

25.25 Near-Misses Are Actively Reported and Used to Update Risk Assessments

CORE

A near-miss — a situation that could have resulted in harm but did not — is actively reported by caregivers and used to update risk assessments and safety procedures, not dismissed as a non-event simply because no actual harm occurred this time.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Are caregivers encouraged and supported to report a near-miss, not discouraged from doing so?
    Near-misses are reported, not discouraged.
  2. Does a reported near-miss lead to an updated risk assessment, not filed without resulting action?
    A near-miss changes the risk assessment.
  3. Are near-miss reports reviewed for a broader pattern, not treated only as isolated, individual incidents?
    Patterns across near-misses reveal hidden risks.

25.26 Supervisory Visits Occur On-Site

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Supervisory visits occur on-site and in person, on a defined schedule matching the actual level of care being provided — not substituted by a phone check-in, and not treated as satisfied by counting individual caregiver visits rather than calendar-based intervals.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Do supervisory visits occur on-site and in person, not substituted by phone check-ins?
    Supervision in person, not only by phone.
  2. Is the visit schedule based on calendar time, not miscounted as a number of caregiver visits?
    Visits are scheduled by time, not by counting caregiver visits.
  3. Does the visit schedule match the actual level of care being provided?
    The schedule reflects the care given.

25.27 Personal Care Supervision Includes Observing the Aide Providing Care

NON-NEGOTIABLE

When a client receives only personal care services, the required supervisory visit includes observing the caregiver providing care, with the caregiver present — not a supervisory visit conducted without the caregiver there, which fails to assess how care is being delivered.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does the personal care supervisory visit include the caregiver actively present and providing care?
    The caregiver is observed giving care.
  2. Is this visit conducted by a registered nurse specifically, not another staff type?
    A nurse conducts the supervisory visit.
  3. Does the visit occur within the applicable defined interval, not exceeding it?
    Visits happen within the defined interval.

25.28 Supervision Documentation Captures Objective, Measurable Observations

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Supervisory visit documentation captures objective, measurable observations — not a vague, general statement like "patient is progressing well, continue plan of care" that provides no comparable information for the next reviewer.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does supervisory documentation capture objective, measurable observations, not vague general statements?
    Observations that can be measured and compared.
  2. Can documentation from different visits be compared to identify a change over time?
    Records from different visits can show change.
  3. Are staff trained on what constitutes adequate, objective documentation, not left to write vague reassurance by default?
    Staff know what good documentation looks like.

25.29 A Change in Client Needs Triggers Care Plan Review

NON-NEGOTIABLE

When a client's actual needs change — a service is no longer required, a new need emerges, responsibility shifts between disciplines — this triggers review and update of the care plan, not left to continue reflecting needs that no longer accurately describe the client's current situation.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does a change in client needs actively trigger care plan review, not left unaddressed?
    A change in needs prompts a plan review.
  2. Is responsibility for the updated plan clearly assigned when it shifts between disciplines?
    Clear ownership when responsibility moves.
  3. Does the updated plan reflect the client's actual, current needs, not a partial update leaving stale elements in place?
    The whole plan is updated, not only the changed part.

25.30 An Identified Deficiency Leads to Retraining and Re-Evaluation

CORE

When a supervisory visit identifies a deficiency in a caregiver's performance, this leads to documented retraining and a subsequent competency evaluation before the caregiver resumes independent care — not a deficiency noted without resulting action, or the caregiver continuing independently without confirmed correction.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does an identified deficiency lead to documented retraining, not noted without resulting action?
    A deficiency leads to documented retraining.
  2. Does the caregiver undergo a subsequent competency evaluation before resuming independent care?
    Competency is re-checked before independent work resumes.
  3. Is this evaluation conducted with the supervisor present, confirming the deficiency is resolved?
    The supervisor confirms the deficiency is resolved.

25.31 A Coverage Plan Exists for a Solo Caregiver's Absence

NON-NEGOTIABLE

For a client served by a single, independent caregiver, a defined coverage arrangement exists for when that caregiver is unavailable — illness, leave, emergency — with a named alternative for care in that gap, not an assumption that the client will simply manage without care.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does a defined coverage arrangement exist for when a solo caregiver is unavailable?
    A written plan for when the caregiver is absent.
  2. Is there a named alternative caregiver or service the client can be directed to during a coverage gap?
    A named alternative for the gap, not a general promise.
  3. Is the client informed of the coverage plan in advance, not left to discover it only when they need it?
    The client knows the plan before it is needed.

25.32 Caregiver Continuity Is Actively Tracked and Prioritised for High-Need Clients

CORE

Caregiver continuity is actively tracked, with specific priority given to clients with the highest care needs — not treated as a passive outcome of scheduling convenience.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Is caregiver continuity actively tracked, not left to passive scheduling outcomes?
    Continuity is measured, not left to chance.
  2. Do clients with the highest care needs receive specific priority for continuity, not treated the same as lower-need clients?
    Priority for those who need continuity most.
  3. Is there a specific, active response when continuity for a high-need client is identified as low?
    A response when continuity falls for a high-need client.

25.33 New Caregiver Retention Receives Structured Attention in the First 100 Days

CORE

New caregiver retention receives specific, structured attention during their first 100 days of employment — onboarding support, regular check-ins, realistic scheduling — not left to general workplace culture alone.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does the service provide structured onboarding support specifically during the first 100 days?
    Support designed for the first 100 days.
  2. Do regular check-ins occur with new caregivers during this specific window?
    Regular check-ins during the first 100 days.
  3. Is scheduling for new caregivers realistic during this period, not immediately as demanding as for experienced staff?
    New caregivers are not given the heaviest schedules at once.

25.34 Caregiver Isolation Is Addressed Through Regular Supervisor Contact

CORE

Caregiver isolation is actively addressed through regular supervisor contact and peer connection opportunities — not left unaddressed on the assumption that working alone is simply an inherent, unavoidable feature of the role that cannot be meaningfully improved.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does the service provide regular, supervisor contact beyond the isolated visit itself?
    Contact with a supervisor beyond each visit.
  2. Are peer connection opportunities offered to caregivers who work in isolation?
    Contact with colleagues for caregivers who work alone.
  3. Is this contact and connection valued and used by caregivers, not merely offered without uptake?
    Caregivers use the contact, not just have it offered.

25.35 Incident Reporting Accounts for Detection Delay in an Unsupervised Setting

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Incident reporting practice accounts for the possibility that a problem in an unsupervised home setting may not be discovered immediately — building in specific mechanisms for delayed discovery, not designed only around incidents that happen to be witnessed or reported in time.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does incident reporting account for the possibility of delayed discovery?
    Incident reporting allows for problems found late.
  2. Are there specific mechanisms
    check-ins, family contact — that could catch a delayed-discovery incident? — Mechanisms that could catch a problem found late.
  3. Is there a specific process for investigating a delayed-discovery incident without a witness present at the time?
    A defined method for investigating an incident no one saw.

25.36 Care Is Adapted to a Client's Migration and Displacement Experience

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Care is adapted to a client's migration and displacement experience — including trauma-informed practice and awareness of legal-status barriers to access — not delivered identically regardless of that history, because a caregiver's daily, ongoing presence in the home makes this context relevant to nearly every aspect of the relationship.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Is care adapted to a client's migration and displacement experience, not delivered identically regardless of history?
    Care adapted to the client's history.
  2. Is trauma-informed practice applied throughout the ongoing relationship, not only referenced once at intake?
    Trauma-informed care throughout, not only at intake.
  3. Is the caregiver aware of legal-status barriers to access that may affect this specific client?
    The caregiver knows which barriers may affect this client.

25.37 Language Support Accounts for Persistent, Daily Interaction

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Language and communication support accounts for the persistent, daily nature of home care — not designed only around occasional, episodic interpreter access.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does language support account for the daily, ongoing nature of home care, not episodic interpreter access alone?
    Daily communication needs, not only occasional interpreting.
  2. Is the caregiver matched for shared language where feasible, or given practical daily communication tools where not?
    A shared language where possible, or daily tools where not.
  3. Is a minor ever used to facilitate interpretation between caregiver and client?
    A child should never be used to interpret.

25.38 Cultural and Religious Practices in the Client's Home Are Respected

NON-NEGOTIABLE

A client's cultural and religious practices are respected within their own home — dietary requirements, prayer routines, gender-appropriate care preferences — not overridden by the caregiver's own habits or convenience.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does the caregiver respect the client's specific dietary, religious, and cultural practices?
    Dietary, religious and cultural practices are respected.
  2. Are gender-appropriate care preferences accommodated where the client expresses them, with the preference recorded?
    A preference that is expressed and not recorded will be forgotten at the next visit.
  3. Was the caregiver asked about these preferences, not assumed from background?
    Preferences are asked, not assumed.

25.39 Caregiver Work Authorisation Is Verified Through Legal, Non-Discriminatory Practice

CORE

Caregiver work authorisation is verified through the same legal, standard employment practice applied to every prospective employee — not subjected to excess scrutiny beyond what the law requires, and not applied inconsistently based on a caregiver's perceived national origin or accent.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Is work authorisation verified through the same standard, legal process for every candidate?
    One standard process for every candidate.
  2. Is verification applied consistently, not varying by perceived national origin or accent?
    Verification does not vary with national origin or accent.
  3. Are staff trained on the requirement's actual legal scope, not exceeding what is required?
    Staff know the legal limits of the check.

25.40 A Caregiver's Legal Status Change Is Handled With Support

CORE

When a caregiver's own legal work authorisation status changes — a permit expiring, a visa category ending, a policy shift removing a pathway that existed when they were hired — the service provides support and transition time, not abrupt termination without any transition process.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does the service provide support when a caregiver's legal status changes?
    Support when a caregiver's status changes.
  2. Is the affected client supported through this transition?
    The client is supported during the change.
  3. Is the service currently informed about relevant legal status changes?
    The service keeps up with changes in the law.

25.41 Immigrant Caregivers' Retention Advantage Is Recognised and Supported

CORE

The service recognises and supports the documented retention advantage immigrant caregivers bring to continuity of care — not undermining this advantage through precarious employment practices that create instability regardless of a caregiver's own commitment to staying.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does the service recognise immigrant caregivers' documented retention advantage, not overlook this strength?
    Recognition of the documented retention strength.
  2. Are employment practices supportive, not precarious in ways that undermine this advantage?
    Employment practices that keep the advantage.
  3. Is this recognition reflected in practical support
    benefits, advancement opportunities — not merely acknowledged in principle?

25.42 Legal Status Diversity Recognition for Clients

CORE

The service can name which legal status categories its clients represent — asylum seeker, recognised refugee, stateless person, and others — and demonstrates it does not apply a single, uniform assumption about access rights across all of them.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Can staff name the specific legal status categories this service's clients represent?
    Staff know the categories their clients belong to.
  2. Does the service avoid applying a single, uniform assumption about access rights across all statuses?
    Access rights are not assumed to be the same for every status.
  3. Is there a specific process for verifying which category applies when it is unclear?
    A process for establishing the status when it is unclear.

25.43 Care Is Documented and Provided to Clients Regardless of Immigration or Legal Status

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Care is provided and fully documented for every client regardless of immigration or legal status, with no differential standard of care, documentation practice, or record-keeping applied based on status — not a lesser or informal standard applied to a client without documented status.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Is the same standard of care applied and documented the same way regardless of a client's immigration or legal status?
    The same care and records for every client.
  2. Are staff specifically trained that immigration status is never a reason to withhold or alter care or documentation?
    Staff know that status never justifies less care.
  3. Is client information protected with the same confidentiality standard regardless of status, with no informal sharing of status-related information?
    Confidentiality is the same for every client.

25.44 Staff Reflective Practice and Bias Awareness Extends to How Immigrant Caregivers Are Treated

CORE

Staff reflective practice and bias awareness extends to how immigrant caregivers themselves are treated by the organisation, clients, and families — not limited to awareness of bias toward migrant clients alone.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does bias awareness training address discrimination immigrant caregivers might experience?
    Training covers discrimination against caregivers.
  2. Is there a known process for a caregiver to report discrimination they experience?
    A known route for reporting discrimination.
  3. Does the organisation support a caregiver who reports this concern?
    Caregivers who report are supported.

25.45 Continuity Across a Client's Relocation Is Actively Supported

CORE

When a migrant or refugee client relocates, the service actively supports continuity of care — a portable, client-held summary of care needs, active handover where a new provider is known — not treating relocation as an automatic, unavoidable end to the caregiving relationship's accumulated understanding of the client.

VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

  1. Does the service actively support continuity when a client relocates, not treat relocation as an automatic end to continuity?
    Continuity is supported through a move.
  2. Is a portable, client-held summary of care needs provided, capturing the accumulated understanding built over time?
    A summary the client can carry to a new provider.
  3. Where a new provider is known, is active handover attempted, not assumed impossible?
    Handover attempted where a new provider is known. ————————————————————

← All ASF Health Standards

© 2026 Accréditation Sans Frontières · PHIG · Sheni Network