ASF Standards · Home Care · Standard 6
Standard 6 — Care Plan Development & Ongoing Supervision
Criteria in this standard
6.1 — Supervisory Visits Occur Genuinely On-Site
6.2 — Personal Care Supervision Includes Genuinely Observing the Aide Providing Care
6.3 — Supervision Documentation Captures Objective, Measurable Observations
6.4 — A Change in Client Needs Triggers Genuine Care Plan Review
6.5 — An Identified Deficiency Leads to Genuine Retraining and Re-Evaluation
6.2 — Personal Care Supervision Includes Genuinely Observing the Aide Providing Care
6.3 — Supervision Documentation Captures Objective, Measurable Observations
6.4 — A Change in Client Needs Triggers Genuine Care Plan Review
6.5 — An Identified Deficiency Leads to Genuine Retraining and Re-Evaluation
6.1
Supervisory Visits Occur Genuinely On-Site
Non-Negotiable
Supervisory visits genuinely occur on-site and in person, on a real, 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 genuine calendar-based intervals.
In plain terms: Supervisors visit clients in their homes, in person, on a schedule that matches the level of care — not by phone, not 'when they can.'
| Facility category | Crisis | Transition | Small | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | Full | Full | Adapted | Full |
Why this matters
Home care is invisible unless someone goes and looks. A supervisor who checks by phone hears what the caregiver and client say; a supervisor who visits sees the client's condition, the home, the care being given, and the things nobody mentions. The schedule must match the care: monthly for personal care and complex clients, less often for low-intensity domestic support, and always after a change. The visits happen, are documented, and are tracked — a client whose supervisory visit is overdue is a client nobody has seen.
What good looks like
- Supervisory visits genuinely occur on-site and in person.
- The interval is genuinely calculated by calendar days, not visit count.
- The schedule genuinely matches the actual level of care provided.
Common failure modes
- Phone check-ins are treated as equivalent to on-site supervisory visits.
- The interval is miscalculated as a count of visits rather than calendar days.
- A single generic schedule is applied regardless of the actual care level.
Worked example
In practice
A 150-client agency where supervisory contact was by phone.
BeforeSupervisors phoned clients monthly. In-person visits happened 'when there was a problem.' A client had lost 8 kg and her home had become unhygienic before anyone saw her. The caregiver had not mentioned it.
ActionAn in-person supervisory visit schedule was set: monthly for personal care and complex clients, quarterly for domestic support only, within two weeks of any change or complaint. Visits are logged with date and findings. The schedule is tracked; overdue visits are flagged weekly. Supervisor caseloads were adjusted to make it achievable.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the visit schedule (no client overdue), 30 visit records with findings, and the caseload adjustment. Verified.
If you are starting from zero — do this first
- List every client and the date of their last in-person supervisory visit.
- Set a schedule by care level.
- Track it and flag overdue weekly.
- Adjust supervisor caseloads if needed.
The most common mistake: Supervision by phone — you hear only what is said.
Self-assessment questions
1. Do supervisory visits genuinely occur on-site and in person, not substituted by phone check-ins? — Real, on-site, in-person visits, not a phone call treated as equivalent.
Evidence: Supervisory visit record
Evidence: Supervisory visit record
2. Is the visit schedule genuinely based on calendar time, not miscounted as a number of caregiver visits? — Real, correct calendar-interval tracking, not the documented, common miscount.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Does the visit schedule genuinely match the actual level of care being provided? — Real, care-type-appropriate scheduling, not a single generic interval applied to every situation.
Evidence: Schedule-to-care-level matching documentation
Evidence: Schedule-to-care-level matching documentation
Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer
- On-site visits happen reliably but documentation doesn't clearly capture the exact calendar-day interval maintained. — Clear, specific documentation is what makes the interval genuinely verifiable, not assumed correct.
- The correct interval is generally understood but a specific staff member's informal tracking occasionally miscounts it. — Every person tracking this interval needs the same accurate, genuine understanding of calendar-day counting.
- Scheduling is correct for the most common care type but hasn't been specifically reconfirmed for a less common arrangement.
Implementation plan
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Review current supervisory visit practice for genuine on-site occurrence and correct interval calculation. |
| Week 2 | Correct any miscounted interval and retrain staff on calendar-day, not visit-count, tracking. |
| Week 3 | Confirm the visit schedule genuinely matches the actual level of care for every client. |
| Ongoing | Audit interval calculation accuracy periodically. |
How the Monitor verifies this
| Method | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| DOCUMENT | Visit record review | Reviews records confirming supervisory visits genuinely occur on-site and in person. |
| DOCUMENT | Interval calculation review | Reviews whether the visit schedule is genuinely calculated by calendar days, not visit count. |
| DOCUMENT | Care-level matching review | Reviews whether the visit schedule genuinely matches the actual level of care being provided. |
Supervisor tips
- Ask staff to walk through how they calculate the supervisory visit interval for a specific, real client. — A specific, accurate answer reveals genuine understanding of calendar-day calculation, not the common visit-count error.
- Ask whether a phone check-in has ever been counted as satisfying this requirement. — A direct question often surfaces informal practice a policy review wouldn't catch.
Evidence base
[26] Established supervisory practice for home-based caregiving specifies onsite, in-person visits at a defined calendar interval, with phone check-ins not satisfying this requirement, and treating a calendar-based interval as a count of visits rather than elapsed time identified as a documented, common compliance error.
ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →
Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.
6.2
Personal Care Supervision Includes Genuinely Observing the Aide Providing Care
Non-Negotiable
When a client receives only personal care services, the required supervisory visit genuinely includes observing the caregiver actually providing care, with the caregiver genuinely present — not a supervisory visit conducted without the caregiver there, which fails to actually assess how care is genuinely being delivered.
In plain terms: For personal care clients, the supervisor watches the caregiver actually giving care — a transfer, a wash, a meal — not just talks to the client afterward.
| Facility category | Crisis | Transition | Small | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | Full | Full | Adapted | Full |
Why this matters
The only way to know whether a caregiver transfers safely, washes with dignity, or feeds a client patiently is to watch. A conversation with the client afterward tells you if they are unhappy enough to say so; it does not tell you if the transfer technique will injure them next month. Observation means the supervisor is present for a care task, uses a structured observation form, gives feedback, and records what was seen. It is the difference between supervision and a visit.
What good looks like
- The caregiver is genuinely present and actively providing care during the visit.
- The visit is genuinely conducted by a registered nurse specifically.
- The visit genuinely occurs within the defined interval.
Common failure modes
- The visit is conducted without the caregiver genuinely present.
- The visit is conducted by an unauthorized role.
- The visit occurs beyond the defined interval.
Worked example
In practice
A 100-client agency where supervisory visits were conversations.
BeforeSupervisors visited and talked with the client. Care was not observed. A caregiver had been using an unsafe transfer technique for months; the client had shoulder pain she attributed to age. Nobody had watched.
ActionSupervisory visits for personal care clients are now timed to coincide with a care task. The supervisor observes using a structured form: hand hygiene, communication, dignity, technique, safety, documentation. Feedback is given on the spot and recorded. Deficiencies trigger retraining (6.5). Each caregiver is observed at least quarterly.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 25 observation forms with structured findings and feedback; three showed technique corrections with follow-up. Verified.
If you are starting from zero — do this first
- Schedule the next supervisory visit for personal care clients during a care task.
- Use a structured observation form.
- Give feedback on the spot.
- Observe every caregiver quarterly.
The most common mistake: Visiting the client after the caregiver has left — the care is already over.
Self-assessment questions
1. Does the personal care supervisory visit genuinely include the caregiver actively present and providing care? — Real, genuine presence and active observation, not a visit conducted in the caregiver's absence.
Evidence: Personal care supervisory visit record
Evidence: Personal care supervisory visit record
2. Is this visit genuinely conducted by a registered nurse specifically, not another staff type? — Real, correct conductor of the visit, not substituted by an unauthorized role.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Does the visit genuinely occur within the applicable defined interval, not exceeding it? — Real, timely occurrence within the defined interval, not a lapse beyond it.
Evidence: Visit timing record
Evidence: Visit timing record
Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer
- Presence is generally arranged but scheduling occasionally results in the caregiver's shift ending just before the visit occurs. — Genuine coordination of timing is what ensures the visit actually accomplishes its real purpose.
- The correct conductor requirement is understood but not consistently confirmed before scheduling a specific visit. — Confirming the conductor's qualification before scheduling prevents a visit from being genuinely non-compliant after the fact.
- Visits generally occur within the interval but timing is occasionally close to the outer limit without margin.
Implementation plan
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Review current personal care supervisory visit practice for genuine caregiver presence and correct conductor. |
| Week 2 | Establish scheduling coordination ensuring caregiver presence during the visit. |
| Week 3 | Confirm every supervisory visit is genuinely conducted by a registered nurse. |
| Ongoing | Track visit timing with margin against the defined interval, not close to the outer limit. |
How the Monitor verifies this
| Method | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| OBSERVE | Presence verification | Confirms the caregiver was genuinely present and actively providing care during the supervisory visit. |
| DOCUMENT | Conductor verification | Reviews records confirming the visit was genuinely conducted by a registered nurse. |
| DOCUMENT | Timing review | Reviews whether the visit genuinely occurs within the applicable defined interval. |
Supervisor tips
- Ask to see a real, recent supervisory visit record and confirm the caregiver's genuine presence. — A real, specific record reveals genuine practice, not an assumption of compliance.
- Ask who specifically conducts these visits and confirm this matches the required role. — A specific, confident answer reveals genuine attention to this requirement, not assumed compliance.
Evidence base
[27] Established supervisory practice for clients receiving only personal care services requires visits by a qualified supervising professional at a defined interval, with the caregiver required to be present and actively providing care during the visit, distinct from supervision arrangements for skilled clinical care.
ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →
Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.
6.3
Supervision Documentation Captures Objective, Measurable Observations
Non-Negotiable
Supervisory visit documentation genuinely captures objective, measurable observations — not a vague, general statement like "patient is progressing well, continue plan of care" that provides no real, comparable information for the next reviewer.
In plain terms: Supervisory visit notes record specific, measurable things — what was observed, what the client said, what was checked — not 'client seems well, care satisfactory.'
| Facility category | Crisis | Transition | Small | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | Full | Full | Full | Full |
Why this matters
'Care satisfactory' is an opinion. 'Client transferred with stand aid, technique correct; skin intact on inspection; weight 62 kg (61 last month); client states caregiver arrives on time; medication chart complete for the month; hallway rug removed as planned' is evidence. Objective documentation lets the next supervisor see change, lets an auditor verify, and lets the agency defend its supervision. A structured form with specific fields produces it; a blank box produces 'satisfactory.'
What good looks like
- Documentation genuinely captures objective, measurable observations.
- Documentation across visits genuinely allows real comparison over time.
- Staff are specifically trained on this objective documentation standard.
Common failure modes
- Documentation consists of vague, general statements providing no real information.
- Documentation across visits can't genuinely be compared to reveal change.
- Staff aren't specifically trained; vague documentation is the default.
Worked example
In practice
A 120-client agency whose supervisory notes were a paragraph of free text.
BeforeNotes read 'visited, client happy, no concerns.' The Coordinator reviewed 40 notes: no weights, no skin checks, no medication chart reviews, no environmental checks documented. A client's deterioration over four months was invisible in the notes.
ActionA structured supervisory visit form was introduced: client condition (weight, skin, mobility, mood — observed), care delivery (observed task, technique, documentation reviewed), environment (hazards checked, remediation status), client feedback (verbatim), caregiver feedback, actions. Every field is completed. The form is compared to the previous visit to identify change.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 30 structured forms with objective observations and identified changes. Verified.
If you are starting from zero — do this first
- Read your last ten supervisory notes. Could you tell whether the client is better or worse than last month?
- Build a structured form with measurable fields.
- Require every field.
- Compare each visit to the last.
The most common mistake: 'No concerns' — the note that tells the next supervisor nothing.
Self-assessment questions
1. Does supervisory documentation genuinely capture objective, measurable observations, not vague general statements? — Real, specific, measurable content, not a vague reassurance that provides no comparable information.
Evidence: Supervisory documentation sample
Evidence: Supervisory documentation sample
2. Can documentation from different visits genuinely be compared to identify a real change over time? — Real, comparable documentation, not language too vague to reveal any actual change.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Are staff genuinely trained on what constitutes adequate, objective documentation, not left to write vague reassurance by default? — Real, specific training on this documentation standard, not assumed general competence.
Evidence: Documentation training record
Evidence: Documentation training record
Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer
- Documentation is objective for physical observations but vague regarding cognitive or behavioral status. — Every dimension of a client's real status deserves the same objective, measurable documentation standard.
- Training addresses the general principle but doesn't specifically model what genuinely adequate documentation looks like. — Concrete examples make an abstract documentation standard genuinely actionable in daily practice.
- Documentation is generally objective but occasionally reverts to vague language during high-volume periods.
Implementation plan
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Review current supervisory documentation for genuine, objective, measurable content. |
| Week 2 | Train staff specifically on this documentation standard with concrete examples. |
| Week 3 | Establish documentation review to catch and correct vague language. |
| Ongoing | Confirm documentation quality holds during high-volume periods specifically. |
How the Monitor verifies this
| Method | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| DOCUMENT | Documentation quality review | Reviews a sample of actual supervisory documentation for genuine, objective, measurable content. |
| DOCUMENT | Comparability review | Reviews whether documentation across different visits genuinely allows comparison over time. |
| DOCUMENT | Training review | Reviews training records confirming staff are specifically taught this documentation standard. |
Supervisor tips
- Ask to see actual, real supervisory documentation for a specific client across two or more visits. — A real, direct comparison reveals whether documentation genuinely allows tracking change over time.
- Ask a staff member to explain what makes documentation genuinely objective, not just to confirm a policy exists. — A specific, confident answer reveals genuine, internalized understanding, not assumed general competence.
Evidence base
[28] Established documentation standards for supervisory practice specifically require objective measurements enabling comparison across assessments, with a vague statement such as "client is progressing well, continue plan of care" explicitly identified as not meeting the required documentation standard.
ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →
Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.
6.4
A Change in Client Needs Triggers Genuine Care Plan Review
Non-Negotiable
When a client's actual needs genuinely change — a service is no longer required, a new need emerges, responsibility shifts between disciplines — this genuinely triggers review and update of the care plan, not left to continue reflecting needs that no longer accurately describe the client's real, current situation.
In plain terms: When a client's needs change — a service no longer needed, a new need, a family member taking over a task — the care plan is reviewed and updated, not left running on autopilot.
| Facility category | Crisis | Transition | Small | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | Full | Full | Adapted | Full |
Why this matters
The client recovered from her hip replacement; the agency is still sending a caregiver to help her shower. The client's dementia progressed; the care plan still says 'independent with meals.' The daughter moved in and does the shopping; the agency still charges for it. Care plans drift from reality unless changes trigger review. Triggers: any change in condition, any change in household, any hospital episode, any client or family request, any caregiver observation of change. The review is documented and the plan updated within a defined time.
What good looks like
- A genuine change in client needs actively triggers care plan review.
- Responsibility for the plan is genuinely, clearly assigned when it shifts.
- The updated plan genuinely, completely reflects current needs.
Common failure modes
- Changed needs don't trigger any genuine plan review.
- Responsibility for the plan is ambiguous when circumstances shift.
- Updates are partial, leaving outdated elements alongside new ones.
Worked example
In practice
A 150-client agency with annual care plan reviews.
BeforePlans were reviewed annually. Between reviews, care continued as planned regardless of change. A client whose needs had tripled after a stroke was receiving the same visits for five months. Another was receiving — and paying for — shopping her daughter now did.
ActionChange triggers were defined and caregivers trained to report them on a one-line form. Any trigger leads to a supervisor review within seven days, with the client and family, and a plan update. Six-monthly scheduled reviews continue. The number of triggered reviews is tracked as a quality measure.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 30 triggered reviews with documented changes and plan updates; median time from trigger to review 4 days. Verified.
If you are starting from zero — do this first
- Ask caregivers which clients' needs have changed since the plan was written.
- Define triggers and give caregivers a one-line report form.
- Review within seven days of any trigger.
- Update the plan every time.
The most common mistake: A care plan written at intake, reviewed annually, and wrong for eleven months.
Self-assessment questions
1. Does a genuine change in client needs actively trigger care plan review, not left unaddressed? — Real, active review triggered by the change itself, not routine continuation of an outdated plan.
Evidence: Care plan review trigger documentation
Evidence: Care plan review trigger documentation
2. Is responsibility for the updated plan genuinely, clearly assigned when it shifts between disciplines? — Real, clear assignment of responsibility, not ambiguity about who now owns the plan's accuracy.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Does the updated plan genuinely reflect the client's actual, current needs, not a partial update leaving stale elements in place? — Real, complete update, not selective revision that leaves outdated elements alongside new ones.
Evidence: Updated care plan review
Evidence: Updated care plan review
Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer
- Review is triggered for a major change like discontinued therapy but not consistently for a more gradual shift in need. — A gradual change carries the same real risk of an increasingly inaccurate plan as an abrupt one.
- Responsibility is understood generally but isn't specifically documented at the moment it actually transfers. — Documented, specific assignment at the point of transfer prevents genuine ambiguity about current ownership.
- Updates address the specific change but don't prompt a genuine review of the plan's other elements for continued accuracy.
Implementation plan
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Review current practice for genuine care plan review triggered by changed client needs. |
| Week 2 | Establish clear, documented responsibility assignment at the point of any discipline transfer. |
| Week 3 | Build a process ensuring complete, not partial, plan updates. |
| Ongoing | Extend review triggers to gradual, not only abrupt, changes in need. |
How the Monitor verifies this
| Method | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| DOCUMENT | Trigger review | Reviews evidence that a genuine change in client needs actively triggers care plan review. |
| DOCUMENT | Responsibility assignment review | Reviews whether responsibility for the plan is genuinely, clearly assigned when it shifts. |
| DOCUMENT | Update completeness review | Reviews whether the updated plan genuinely reflects current needs, not a partial revision. |
Supervisor tips
- Ask for a real, recent example of a client whose needs changed and trace what happened to their care plan. — A real, traceable example reveals genuine practice, not policy language alone.
- Ask who currently owns responsibility for a specific client's plan and how that was determined. — A specific, confident answer reveals genuine, clear assignment, not ambiguity.
Evidence base
[29] When a patient's needs change such that responsibility for supervision transfers between disciplines, the discipline assuming responsibility is expected to review and update the aide care plan, establishing genuine plan review at the point of real, changed circumstances as required practice.
ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →
Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.
6.5
An Identified Deficiency Leads to Genuine Retraining and Re-Evaluation
Core
When a supervisory visit identifies a genuine deficiency in a caregiver's performance, this leads to real, documented retraining and a genuine, subsequent competency evaluation before the caregiver resumes independent care — not a deficiency noted without resulting action, or the caregiver continuing independently without confirmed correction.
In plain terms: When a supervisor sees a caregiver doing something wrong, the caregiver is retrained — specifically, documented — and observed again to confirm it has been fixed.
| Facility category | Crisis | Transition | Small | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | N/A | Full | Adapted | Full |
Why this matters
The supervisor observed a poor transfer technique. What happened next? If the answer is 'I mentioned it,' nothing changed. Retraining means: the specific deficiency named; specific training delivered (a demonstration, a course, a supervised practice); documented; and a re-observation within a defined time to confirm competence. If the deficiency persists, escalation. A supervision finding that leads nowhere is a finding the agency has decided to live with.
What good looks like
- Identified deficiencies genuinely lead to documented retraining.
- A genuine competency evaluation confirms resolution before independent care resumes.
- The evaluation is genuinely conducted with the supervisor present.
Common failure modes
- Deficiencies are noted without any genuine, resulting retraining.
- Independent care resumes without a genuine, confirming evaluation.
- Improvement is self-reported without genuine, supervised confirmation.
Worked example
In practice
A 100-client agency where supervision findings were noted but not followed up.
BeforeObservation forms recorded deficiencies. Nothing was done. A caregiver observed twice with poor hand hygiene continued unchanged. The Coordinator found 15 recorded deficiencies in six months with no documented retraining.
ActionA deficiency response process was written: any deficiency observed → specific retraining within two weeks (method documented) → re-observation within four weeks → competence confirmed or escalation (further training, restricted duties, capability process). Tracked in a register. Recurrent deficiencies across caregivers trigger a team-wide training update.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the register: 22 deficiencies, all with retraining and re-observation documented; 20 resolved, 2 escalated. Verified.
If you are starting from zero — do this first
- Review your last 20 observation forms. For every deficiency, what was done?
- Write the process: retrain in two weeks, re-observe in four.
- Track it in a register.
- Escalate persistent deficiencies.
The most common mistake: Mentioning the problem to the caregiver and moving on.
Self-assessment questions
1. Does an identified deficiency lead to genuine, documented retraining, not noted without resulting action? — Real, specific retraining actually delivered, not a deficiency recorded without follow-through.
Evidence: Retraining record
Evidence: Retraining record
2. Does the caregiver genuinely undergo a subsequent competency evaluation before resuming independent care? — Real, confirmed re-evaluation, not resumed independent care assumed safe without verification.
Evidence: Post-retraining competency evaluation record
Evidence: Post-retraining competency evaluation record
3. Is this evaluation genuinely conducted with the supervisor present, confirming the deficiency is actually resolved? — Real, supervised, confirmed resolution, not self-reported improvement accepted without verification.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer
- Retraining happens promptly for significant deficiencies but is delayed for more minor ones. — Every genuine deficiency deserves the same prompt, real correction, regardless of apparent severity.
- Re-evaluation happens but isn't consistently documented as specifically addressing the original deficient skill. — Documentation specifically tied to the original concern is what confirms genuine resolution, not general competency confirmation.
- The process works well for skills-based deficiencies but is less clearly defined for a judgment or communication concern.
Implementation plan
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Review current deficiency response for genuine retraining and re-evaluation practice. |
| Week 2 | Establish prompt retraining for every identified deficiency, regardless of apparent severity. |
| Week 3 | Build documentation specifically tying re-evaluation to the original identified concern. |
| Ongoing | Extend clear process definition to judgment and communication concerns, not skills alone. |
How the Monitor verifies this
| Method | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| DOCUMENT | Retraining record review | Reviews documented evidence of genuine retraining following an identified deficiency. |
| DOCUMENT | Re-evaluation review | Reviews whether a genuine, subsequent competency evaluation occurred before independent care resumed. |
| DOCUMENT | Supervised confirmation review | Reviews whether the evaluation was genuinely conducted with the supervisor present. |
Supervisor tips
- Ask for a real, recent example of an identified deficiency and trace the full retraining and re-evaluation sequence. — A real, traceable example reveals genuine follow-through, not policy language without practical application.
- Ask how a judgment or communication-related deficiency would be specifically retrained and re-evaluated. — A specific, thoughtful answer reveals whether the process genuinely extends beyond straightforward skills-based concerns.
Evidence base
[30] When a supervisory visit identifies a deficiency, established practice requires the caregiver to receive retraining in the deficient skills and then pass a genuine, onsite competency evaluation with the supervisor present before resuming independent care.
ASF training courses on GMJ Academy →
Foundation courses A-00 to A-03 are live. Criterion-specific modules are being developed and will link here when published.