EDITIONEN·FR·ქართ
ASF Logo

Accréditation Sans Frontières

International Accreditation of Healthcare Facilities

Start accreditation  
ASF Standards · Home Care · Standard 8

Standard 8 — Health & Migration

10 criteria · 4 non-negotiable · 6 core · Version 3.0

Criteria in this standard

8.1 — Care Is Genuinely Adapted to a Client's Migration and Displacement Experience
8.2 — Language Support Accounts for Persistent, Daily Interaction
8.3 — Cultural and Religious Practices in the Client's Home Are Genuinely Respected
8.4 — Caregiver Work Authorization Is Verified Through Legal, Non-Discriminatory Practice
8.5 — A Caregiver's Legal Status Change Is Handled With Genuine Support
8.6 — Immigrant Caregivers' Genuine Retention Advantage Is Recognized and Supported
8.7 — Legal Status Diversity Recognition for Clients
8.8 — Care Is Documented and Provided to Clients Regardless of Immigration or Legal Status
8.9 — Staff Reflective Practice and Bias Awareness Extends to How Immigrant Caregivers Are Treated
8.10 — Continuity Across a Client's Relocation Is Actively Supported
8.1

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

Non-Negotiable

Care is genuinely 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, given a caregiver's daily, ongoing presence in the home makes this context genuinely relevant to nearly every aspect of the relationship.

In plain terms: Care in the home is adapted for a client who has been displaced — trauma-informed, alert to fear of authorities, aware of loss — not delivered as if their history did not exist.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability Full Full Full Full

Why this matters

A refugee client receiving care in her home may be terrified of a stranger with a key, may not disclose symptoms that could mark her as a burden, may react to being undressed with a fear rooted in what was done to her before, may fear that the caregiver reports to authorities. Trauma-informed home care means: the caregiver explains before touching, asks permission, is predictable, avoids triggers the client has identified; the agency has told the client explicitly that status is not asked and not reported; the care plan records what the client has said about their history and needs. The home is the one place the client should feel safe; the caregiver must not undermine that.

What good looks like

  • Care is genuinely, visibly adapted to migration and displacement history.
  • Trauma-informed practice is sustained throughout the ongoing relationship.
  • The caregiver demonstrates specific awareness of legal-status access barriers.

Common failure modes

  • Care is delivered identically regardless of migration history.
  • Trauma-informed practice is referenced once at intake and not sustained.
  • The caregiver shows no specific awareness of legal-status barriers.

Worked example

In practice
A 100-client agency serving refugee clients through a resettlement contract.
BeforeRefugee clients were served identically to others. Caregivers had no training on displacement or trauma. A client who had been detained resisted personal care violently; the caregiver did not know why. Another did not disclose a serious symptom for months, fearing it would affect her status.
ActionA trauma-informed home care module was developed with a refugee NGO and delivered to all caregivers. Intake for refugee clients includes a gentle conversation about history, triggers, and fears, recorded in the care plan with the client's consent. The agency's written statement — status not asked, never reported — is explained at intake. Caregivers explain each step and ask permission. A refugee liaison worker supports complex cases.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed training records, 10 refugee care plans with trauma-informed sections, and interviewed the liaison worker and a client who described feeling safe with her caregiver. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Ask refugee-serving organisations what their clients say about home care.
  2. Train caregivers in trauma-informed care with an NGO.
  3. Add a history/triggers/fears section to refugee clients' care plans.
  4. State in writing: status not asked, never reported.
The most common mistake: Treating a refugee client 'like everyone else' — for a traumatised person, a stranger with a key is not like everyone else's experience.

Self-assessment questions

1. Is care genuinely adapted to a client's migration and displacement experience, not delivered identically regardless of history? — Genuine adaptation, not a generic cultural-awareness statement.
Evidence: Training record on migration-adapted care
2. Is trauma-informed practice genuinely applied throughout the ongoing relationship, not only referenced once at intake? — Real, sustained practice adaptation, not a one-time consideration.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Is the caregiver aware of legal-status barriers to access that may affect this specific client? — Specific awareness, not a general sense that barriers can exist.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Adaptation happens for clients who disclose their history but isn't proactively considered otherwise. — Not every client will volunteer this history unprompted, even when it is clinically relevant.
  • The caregiver is aware of the principle but hasn't received specific training on applying it day to day. — General awareness doesn't reliably translate into sustained, genuine practice adaptation without specific training.
  • Adaptation is strong initially but isn't sustained as the caregiving relationship continues over months.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current practice for genuine adaptation to migration and displacement history.
Week 2 Train caregivers specifically on trauma-informed, migration-adapted practice.
Week 3 Build awareness of legal-status access barriers into standard practice.
Ongoing Revisit adaptation as the ongoing caregiving relationship continues.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
ASK Migration-adapted care interview Asks the caregiver how they adapt practice specifically for a client's migration and displacement history.
OBSERVE Trauma-informed practice observation Observes an actual visit for genuine trauma-informed practice, not generic sensitivity.
DOCUMENT Training content review Reviews training materials for specific coverage of migration-adapted, trauma-informed care.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask a caregiver to describe a specific example of adapting care for a client's migration history. — A real, specific example reveals genuine practice, not familiarity with the principle.
  • Ask how this awareness has been sustained over months of ongoing care, not just at the initial visit. — This reveals whether adaptation genuinely persists, not fading with familiarity.

Evidence base

[36] WHO Competency Standard 1 (Refugee and Migrant Health: Global Competency Standards for Health Workers, 2021) requires health workers to adapt practice to migration and displacement experiences, address trauma-informed care and psychosocial needs, and support continuity of care regardless of legal status.

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.

8.2

Language Support Accounts for Persistent, Daily Interaction

Non-Negotiable

Language and communication support genuinely accounts for the persistent, daily nature of home care — not designed only around occasional, episodic interpreter access, given a caregiver and client with limited shared language must communicate meaningfully every single day care occurs.

In plain terms: Language support is built for daily, repeated interaction — caregiver matching, key phrases, translated care plans, picture boards — not just an interpreter for the intake meeting.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability Full Full Adapted Full

Why this matters

An interpreter at intake solves the intake. Then the caregiver comes every day, and the client cannot tell them where it hurts, what they want to eat, that they are frightened. Home care is daily; language support must be daily: matching caregivers by language where possible; a translated care plan and daily task list; a pictorial communication board in the home; key phrases learned by the caregiver; a phone interpretation service for anything complex; and family involvement where the client wishes. The client who cannot communicate with their daily caregiver is silenced in their own home.

What good looks like

  • Language support genuinely accounts for daily, ongoing interaction, not episodic access alone.
  • Caregiver matching or practical daily tools are genuinely arranged for sustained communication.
  • Staff confirm, without hesitation, that a minor is never used to interpret.

Common failure modes

  • Language support is planned only around occasional, scheduled interpretation.
  • No genuine matching or practical tools exist for daily communication needs.
  • A minor has been used to interpret, even occasionally.

Worked example

In practice
A 120-client agency with clients speaking eight languages.
BeforeInterpreters were used at intake. Daily care was by gesture. A client could not tell her caregiver she was in pain; it emerged at a supervisory visit through an interpreter. Care plans were in the local language only.
ActionCaregivers were recruited from the main language communities and matched where possible. Care plans and daily task lists are translated into the client's language. A pictorial communication board (pain, food, toilet, help, phone, family) is in every language-discordant client's home. Caregivers learn 20 key phrases in the client's language from a card. A phone interpretation service is used for anything beyond daily routine. Supervisory visits use an interpreter.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed language matching records (65% of language-discordant clients now matched), translated care plans, observed a communication board in use, and interviewed a client through an interpreter who described communicating daily. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. List language-discordant clients and their caregivers' languages.
  2. Recruit from the main language communities.
  3. Translate care plans and put a picture board in every home.
  4. Give caregivers a 20-phrase card.
The most common mistake: Solving language at intake and leaving the daily relationship to gesture.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does language support genuinely account for the daily, ongoing nature of home care, not episodic interpreter access alone? — Real, sustained communication planning, not a model built for a single scheduled encounter.
Evidence: Ongoing communication support plan
2. Is the caregiver genuinely matched for shared language where feasible, or given practical daily communication tools where not? — Real, practical accommodation for daily communication, not an assumption occasional interpretation is sufficient.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Is a minor ever used to facilitate interpretation between caregiver and client? — This should never happen — a specific, absolute rule, not a judgement call.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Language matching is attempted for new client-caregiver pairings but not reconsidered if a pairing changes. — Every new pairing carries the same real communication need, not only the original assignment.
  • Practical daily tools exist but aren't proactively introduced, relying on the caregiver or client to request them. — A tool neither party knows to request provides limited real value for genuine, ongoing communication.
  • Awareness of the no-minors rule is strong among caregivers but not reinforced with family members who might otherwise step in.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current language support for genuine attention to daily, ongoing interaction needs.
Week 2 Establish caregiver-client language matching practice where feasible.
Week 3 Build practical daily communication tools for pairings without shared language.
Ongoing Reinforce the no-minors rule specifically with families, not caregivers alone.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Communication plan review Reviews the specific plan for sustained, daily communication support, not episodic interpretation alone.
ASK Caregiver matching interview Asks how caregiver-client language matching or daily communication tools are genuinely arranged.
ASK Minor-interpreter policy check Asks staff directly whether a minor has ever been used to interpret, confirming this is never acceptable.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask how a caregiver and client without shared language communicate on an ordinary, daily basis. — A specific, real answer reveals genuine, sustained practice, not an assumption occasional interpretation covers it.
  • Ask staff directly whether a child has ever interpreted between a caregiver and a family member. — A direct question often surfaces informal practice a policy review wouldn't catch.

Evidence base

[37] WHO Competency Standard 3 establishes language access and cultural mediation as a genuine, ongoing responsibility, with home care's persistent, daily interaction structure requiring communication support planning distinct from episodic clinical encounter models.

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.

8.3

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

Non-Negotiable

A client's cultural and religious practices are genuinely respected within their own home — dietary requirements, prayer routines, gender-appropriate care preferences — not overridden by the caregiver's own habits or convenience, given this document's own foundational principle that the home remains genuinely the client's to control.

In plain terms: The client's religious and cultural practices in their own home — food, prayer, modesty, who may touch them, gender of caregiver — are learned and respected as a matter of course.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability Full Full Adapted Full

Why this matters

It is the client's home. A Muslim client's prayer times, a Jewish client's kosher kitchen, a Hindu client's dietary laws, a client of any tradition who requires a same-gender caregiver for personal care, a client whose home has rules about shoes or the kitchen — each is a non-negotiable for the client and a matter of basic respect for the caregiver. The agency asks at intake, records in the care plan, matches caregivers accordingly, and trains staff. A caregiver who brings pork into a halal kitchen, or a male caregiver sent to a woman who cannot accept one, has violated the home.

What good looks like

  • The caregiver genuinely respects the client's specific dietary, religious, and cultural practices.
  • Gender-appropriate care preferences are genuinely accommodated where expressed.
  • Specific inquiry, not assumption from background, informed these accommodations.

Common failure modes

  • The caregiver's own habits or convenience override the client's actual practices.
  • Gender-appropriate preferences are disregarded or not genuinely accommodated.
  • Accommodations are assumed from general background, not specifically confirmed with the client.

Worked example

In practice
A 100-client agency in a diverse city with no cultural assessment.
BeforeCaregivers were assigned by availability. A male caregiver was sent for personal care to a woman whose faith prohibited it; she refused care and was recorded as 'non-compliant.' A caregiver used a client's kosher utensils for non-kosher food. No cultural preferences were recorded.
ActionA cultural and religious practices section was added to intake: dietary rules and kitchen practices, prayer and observance times, modesty and gender requirements, home customs. Recorded in the care plan and honoured in caregiver matching (gender, and where possible faith or language). Caregivers receive a briefing card per client. Staff completed a cultural competence session. Requirements are conditions the agency meets, not preferences it considers.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 20 care plans with cultural sections and matching records; interviewed a client who described her caregiver respecting her kitchen. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Ask every client about dietary, faith, modesty, and home customs at intake.
  2. Record them in the care plan as requirements.
  3. Match caregiver gender to the client's requirement.
  4. Brief every caregiver per client.
The most common mistake: Recording a client's refusal of a male caregiver as 'non-compliance' — the agency failed, not the client.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does the caregiver genuinely respect the client's specific dietary, religious, and cultural practices? — Real, active respect for the client's actual practices, not the caregiver's own habits.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
2. Are gender-appropriate care preferences genuinely accommodated where expressed? — Real, active accommodation of the client's own stated preference.
Evidence: Care preference documentation
3. Was the caregiver genuinely asked about these preferences, not assumed from background? — Real, specific inquiry, not assumption based on broad cultural category.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Dietary practices are respected but prayer routines aren't specifically accommodated in the daily care schedule. — Every genuine practice the client values deserves the same specific accommodation, not only the most visible one.
  • Gender-appropriate preferences are accommodated for personal care but not consistently for other aspects of daily assistance. — This preference reflects the client's genuine comfort across the full scope of care, not personal care alone.
  • Inquiry happened at intake but hasn't been revisited as the caregiving relationship has continued.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current practice for genuine, specific respect of client cultural and religious practices.
Week 2 Establish specific inquiry into dietary, religious, and gender-appropriate care preferences.
Week 3 Build these preferences into the actual daily care schedule and routine.
Ongoing Revisit preferences periodically as the caregiving relationship continues.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
OBSERVE Practice respect observation Observes an actual visit for genuine respect of the client's specific cultural and religious practices.
DOCUMENT Preference documentation review Reviews whether gender-appropriate care preferences are genuinely documented and accommodated.
ASK Specific inquiry interview Asks whether the caregiver specifically asked about the client's own practices, not assumed from background.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask a client directly whether their specific cultural or religious practices are genuinely respected during care. — A specific, honest answer reveals genuine respect, not an assumption based on general politeness.
  • Ask the caregiver how they learned about the client's specific preferences. — A specific, confident answer reveals genuine inquiry, not an assumption based on broad cultural background.

Evidence base

[38] Genuine respect for a client's cultural and religious practices within their own home, consistent with established client autonomy principles in home care, carries particular relevance for refugee and migrant clients for whom these practices often represent continuity preserved through displacement.

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.

8.4

Caregiver Work Authorization Is Verified Through Legal, Non-Discriminatory Practice

Core

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

In plain terms: Caregivers' right to work is checked the same lawful way for everyone — the same documents, the same process — never selectively for people who look or sound foreign.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Full Full

Why this matters

Employment law requires work authorisation checks; discrimination law prohibits doing them selectively. An agency that checks 'foreign-looking' applicants more carefully, asks some for documents it does not ask of others, or refuses to consider candidates with certain names, is breaking the law and losing good staff. The process is the same for every applicant: the same document list, at the same stage, recorded the same way. Immigrant caregivers are the backbone of home care in most countries; the process must welcome them lawfully.

What good looks like

  • Work authorization is verified through the same standard, legal process for every candidate.
  • Verification is genuinely consistent, not varying by perceived national origin or accent.
  • Staff are specifically trained on the legal requirement's actual scope.

Common failure modes

  • Verification is skipped or informal, creating real legal exposure.
  • Some candidates face excess scrutiny based on perceived national origin or accent.
  • Staff apply verification inconsistently, without specific training on its actual legal scope.

Worked example

In practice
A 150-client agency with a large immigrant workforce.
BeforeWork authorisation checks were inconsistent: some applicants were asked for extensive documentation, others waved through on a driving licence. Managers admitted asking 'more carefully' when someone had an accent. A discrimination complaint was pending.
ActionA single work authorisation procedure was written to national employment law: the same acceptable document list for all applicants; checked at the same stage (after conditional offer); recorded on the same form; no additional requests based on appearance, name, or accent. Managers were trained on the procedure and on discrimination law. HR audits a sample quarterly for consistency.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the procedure, training records, and a quarterly audit showing identical process for 20 files across nationalities. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Write one work authorisation procedure with one document list for everyone.
  2. Check at the same stage for every applicant.
  3. Train managers on discrimination law.
  4. Audit for consistency quarterly.
The most common mistake: Checking 'more carefully' when the applicant has an accent — that is discrimination.

Self-assessment questions

1. Is work authorization verified through the same standard, legal process for every candidate? — Real, consistent verification, not excess scrutiny applied selectively.
Evidence: Work authorization verification process
2. Is verification applied consistently, not varying by perceived national origin or accent? — Real, consistent application, not discriminatory differentiation.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Are staff trained on the requirement's actual legal scope, not exceeding what's required? — Real, specific training on the genuine standard, not over-scrutiny.
Evidence: Staff training on verification scope

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Verification is consistent for direct hires but less standardized for contracted or agency-placed caregivers. — Every caregiver entering a client's home carries the same real legal and practical requirement.
  • The process is generally consistent but hasn't been specifically reviewed to confirm no unconscious pattern of differential scrutiny exists. — A genuine review for unintended patterns is what confirms the process is actually fair in practice, not just in written policy.
  • Training covers basic requirements but not the specific legal boundary against exceeding what's actually required.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current verification practice for genuine, consistent, legally appropriate scope.
Week 2 Establish standardized verification applying equally to direct hires and contracted caregivers.
Week 3 Train staff specifically on the legal requirement's actual scope, avoiding excess scrutiny.
Ongoing Review verification records periodically for any unintended pattern of differential treatment.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Verification process review Reviews the standard, legal work authorization verification process applied to candidates.
OBSERVE Consistency observation Observes or reviews records for consistent application regardless of perceived national origin.
DOCUMENT Staff training review Reviews training records confirming staff understand the verification requirement's actual, legal scope.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask staff to describe the specific verification process, not a general assurance of legal compliance. — A specific, real process description reveals genuine, standardized practice, not an assumption of adequacy.
  • Ask how the service would ensure verification doesn't vary based on a candidate's accent or apparent background. — A specific, thoughtful answer reveals genuine attention to consistency, not an assumption bias couldn't occur.

Evidence base

[39] Work authorization or right-to-work verification is a standard legal employment requirement in most countries, applying equally to every prospective employee, with migrant caregivers representing a genuine, substantial share of the home care workforce in many countries and often remaining in direct care positions longer than caregivers born in the country where they work, providing important workforce stability.

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.

8.5

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

Core

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

In plain terms: When a caregiver's work permit or visa status changes, the agency helps — information, time, flexibility — rather than dropping them at the first sign of complexity.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Adapted Full

Why this matters

An immigrant caregiver's permit expires, their visa category changes, a renewal is delayed. The agency can help — pointing to advice, allowing time off for appointments, adjusting hours during a transition, keeping the job open where the law allows — or it can terminate at the first complication and lose a trained, trusted caregiver whose clients depend on them. Support is lawful (the agency cannot employ someone without authorisation) and humane (it can do everything within the law to keep them). A written approach means managers know what they can do.

What good looks like

  • Genuine support and transition time are provided when a caregiver's status changes.
  • Affected clients receive genuine support and coverage planning through the transition.
  • The service maintains genuine, current awareness of the relevant regulatory landscape.

Common failure modes

  • A status change results in abrupt termination without any genuine transition process.
  • Affected clients are left without notice or a coverage plan.
  • The service is caught unaware, reactive only after a status has already lapsed.

Worked example

In practice
A 120-client agency where a permit renewal delay had led to a caregiver's immediate dismissal.
BeforeA caregiver's permit renewal was delayed by the authorities. The agency, unsure of the law, terminated her. She had five long-term clients. Two months later her permit was renewed; she was working for a competitor.
ActionA status change support policy was written with employment law advice: the agency provides information on renewal processes and a referral to an immigration advice service; paid time for appointments; where the law permits continued employment during a pending renewal, employment continues with documentation; where it does not, unpaid leave with the position held for a defined period; managers consult HR before any action. Caregivers are told the policy.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the policy with legal basis, and three cases: two continued employment during pending renewals lawfully, one held position during a gap and returned. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Get employment law advice on what you can do during a pending renewal.
  2. Write a support policy: information, time off, position held where lawful.
  3. Tell caregivers.
  4. Require HR consultation before any status-related action.
The most common mistake: Dismissing a caregiver the day their permit expires when the law allowed you to wait for the renewal.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does the service provide genuine support when a caregiver's legal status changes? — Real, active support, not abrupt termination without transition.
Evidence: Status change support process
2. Is the affected client genuinely supported through this transition? — Real, proactive support and coverage planning, not an unexplained loss.
Evidence: Client transition support documentation
3. Is the service genuinely, currently informed about relevant legal status changes? — Real, current awareness, not reactive discovery after a lapse.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Support exists for a caregiver whose status change is identified in advance but not for one discovered after the fact. — Every genuine status change deserves the same support, regardless of how much advance notice existed.
  • Client coverage planning happens but isn't communicated to the client with genuine transparency about what's actually happening. — Genuine transparency helps a client understand and adjust to a transition, not simply experience an unexplained change.
  • Awareness of the regulatory landscape exists at a leadership level but isn't specifically monitored on an ongoing basis.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current practice for genuine support versus abrupt response to a caregiver status change.
Week 2 Establish a defined support and transition process for affected caregivers and clients.
Week 3 Build ongoing monitoring of the relevant regulatory landscape.
Ongoing Communicate transitions to affected clients with genuine transparency.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Support process review Reviews the specific process for supporting a caregiver through a genuine legal status change.
DOCUMENT Client transition review Reviews whether affected clients receive genuine support and coverage planning during this transition.
ASK Current awareness interview Asks leadership how they stay genuinely, currently informed about relevant legal status changes.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask for a real, recent example of a caregiver status change and how it was actually handled. — A real, traceable example reveals genuine support, not an assumption of adequate response.
  • Ask how leadership currently stays informed about relevant legal status developments affecting the workforce. — A specific, confident answer reveals genuine, ongoing awareness, not reactive discovery.

Evidence base

[40] Changes to immigration or work-permit policy can disrupt legal work authorization for caregivers who built their employment relationships around a pathway that existed at the time of hire, establishing genuine transition support as necessary practice distinct from abrupt termination, a pattern documented across multiple countries that rely on migrant care workers.

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.

8.6

Immigrant Caregivers' Genuine Retention Advantage Is Recognized and Supported

Core

The service genuinely recognizes and supports the real, 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 genuine commitment to staying.

In plain terms: The agency recognises that immigrant caregivers stay longer and are more committed — the evidence is clear — and supports them accordingly rather than treating them as temporary.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Adapted Full

Why this matters

Research across countries shows immigrant care workers have lower turnover, higher commitment, and often greater cultural competence with diverse clients. Agencies that treat them as a transient, second-tier workforce — fewer training opportunities, no progression, no recognition — waste that advantage. Supporting them means: the same progression pathways; language and qualification support; recognition of overseas experience; representation in supervision and management; and a culture where immigrant staff are the agency's strength, not its stopgap.

What good looks like

  • The service genuinely recognizes immigrant caregivers' documented retention advantage.
  • Employment practices are genuinely stable and supportive, not precarious.
  • Recognition translates into real, practical support, not remaining theoretical.

Common failure modes

  • This documented advantage goes unrecognized or unused.
  • Precarious employment practices undermine genuine retention regardless of caregiver commitment.
  • Any recognition remains theoretical, without practical, resulting support.

Worked example

In practice
A 150-client agency where 70% of caregivers were immigrants and 0% of supervisors were.
BeforeImmigrant caregivers had the longest service and the least progression. Overseas nursing qualifications were not recognised in any way. Training was offered to 'permanent' staff first. Supervisors were all locally born.
ActionA workforce development review acknowledged the retention data. Progression pathways were opened to all with structured support: language classes funded for caregivers wanting supervisory roles; overseas qualifications reviewed for recognition; a mentoring programme pairing immigrant caregivers with supervisors; training allocated by need and tenure, not status. Two immigrant caregivers were promoted to supervisor within a year.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the review, the progression records, the training allocation data, and interviewed a newly promoted supervisor. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Calculate retention by immigrant status. Look at the result.
  2. Look at who is in supervisory roles.
  3. Open progression with language and qualification support.
  4. Mentor immigrant caregivers toward supervision.
The most common mistake: Treating your most loyal workforce as temporary.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does the service genuinely recognize immigrant caregivers' documented retention advantage, not overlook this real strength? — Real, specific recognition of this documented pattern, not treated as incidental or unnoticed.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
2. Are employment practices genuinely supportive, not precarious in ways that undermine this real advantage? — Real, stable employment practice, not conditions that create instability regardless of a caregiver's own commitment.
Evidence: Employment practice review
3. Is this recognition reflected in genuine, practical support — benefits, advancement opportunities — not merely acknowledged in principle? — Real, practical support, not recognition that remains only theoretical.
Evidence: Practical support documentation

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Recognition exists informally but isn't reflected in specific, structural employment policy. — Genuine, structural support provides more reliable benefit than informal acknowledgment alone.
  • Support exists for full-time immigrant caregivers but not consistently for those in part-time or contracted arrangements. — Every immigrant caregiver contributing to genuine retention deserves the same recognition and support.
  • Practical support exists but hasn't been specifically evaluated to confirm it's genuinely improving retention outcomes.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current employment practices for genuine stability versus precariousness.
Week 2 Establish specific, structural recognition of immigrant caregivers' documented contribution.
Week 3 Build practical support extending to part-time and contracted caregivers, not full-time staff alone.
Ongoing Evaluate whether practical support is genuinely improving retention outcomes.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
ASK Recognition interview Asks leadership whether and how they specifically recognize this documented retention pattern.
DOCUMENT Employment practice review Reviews employment practices for genuine stability, not precarious conditions undermining retention.
DOCUMENT Practical support review Reviews whether recognition translates into genuine, practical support, not remaining theoretical.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask leadership how they specifically recognize and support immigrant caregivers' documented retention contribution. — A specific, thoughtful answer reveals genuine, active recognition, not incidental awareness.
  • Ask a caregiver whether they feel genuinely supported in stable, ongoing employment. — A specific, honest answer reveals whether recognition translates into real, felt support.

Evidence base

[41] Migrant direct care workers are documented in multiple countries as remaining in direct care positions longer than caregivers born in the country where they work, providing important workforce stability and continuity of care, establishing genuine recognition and support of this documented advantage as directly relevant to addressing the home care sector's broader turnover challenges.

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.

8.7

Legal Status Diversity Recognition for Clients

Core

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

In plain terms: The agency can name which legal status groups its clients belong to — refugees, asylum seekers, undocumented, stateless — and knows what each is entitled to and what the agency's own policy is.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Adapted Full

Why this matters

This is the home care version of hospital 9.10. Entitlement to publicly funded home care varies by legal status. An agency that does not know its clients' categories either turns away entitled people or serves un-entitled people without knowing it is unfunded. Knowing the categories, the entitlements, and the agency's own policy for those with no entitlement (a charity fund, a referral, a sliding scale) is the basis for consistent, fair, and financially sustainable practice — handled by the administrator, never as a barrier to care.

What good looks like

  • Staff can name the specific legal status categories clients actually represent.
  • Policy genuinely differentiates access considerations across status categories.
  • A specific, defined process exists for verifying unclear status.

Common failure modes

  • Staff have only a general sense that "migrants" are served, without specific categories.
  • A single, uniform assumption about access rights is applied regardless of status.
  • No process exists for verifying status when it's genuinely unclear.

Worked example

In practice
A 100-client agency in a city with a large mixed-status migrant population.
BeforeIntake staff did not know the entitlement rules. Some entitled refugees were turned away as 'not covered'; some clients were served for months before the agency discovered funding did not apply. No policy existed for un-entitled clients.
ActionThe administrator obtained the entitlement rules by legal status from the funding authority. A one-page reference was created. The policy states: care is never withheld pending status; the administrator handles funding after care starts; clients with no entitlement are served via a charity fund or referred to NGO-funded care. Status is recorded only for funding purposes with consent, separately from the care record.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the entitlement reference, the policy, and 15 client files with funding status correctly recorded. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. List the legal status categories in your area.
  2. Find out what each is entitled to.
  3. Write a policy for those with no entitlement.
  4. Handle status separately from care.
The most common mistake: Turning away an entitled refugee because the intake worker did not know the rules.

Self-assessment questions

1. Can staff name the specific legal status categories this service's clients actually represent? — Specific, named categories, not a general sense that "migrants" are served.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
2. Does the service avoid applying a single, uniform assumption about access rights across all statuses? — Genuine differentiation, not treating all categories identically.
Evidence: Status-specific access policy documentation
3. Is there a specific process for verifying which category applies when it's genuinely unclear? — A real, defined process, not guesswork or assumption when status is ambiguous.
Evidence: Status verification process

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Staff can name the most common category served but not less frequent ones the service still encounters. — Even infrequent categories deserve genuine, specific awareness, not the risk of misapplied assumptions.
  • Differentiation exists in one staff member's own understanding but isn't shared with the wider caregiving team. — Every caregiver interacting with clients benefits from the same genuine understanding.
  • A verification process exists but staff are inconsistently confident applying it.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current staff awareness of the specific legal status categories clients actually represent.
Week 2 Build specific, differentiated access guidance for each relevant status category.
Week 3 Establish a clear verification process for genuinely unclear status.
Ongoing Refresh staff awareness periodically, particularly for less frequently encountered categories.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
ASK Status category awareness interview Asks staff to name the specific legal status categories this service's clients actually represent.
DOCUMENT Status-specific policy review Reviews documentation for genuine differentiation across status categories, not a uniform assumption.
DOCUMENT Verification process review Reviews the process for verifying status when it's genuinely unclear.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask staff to name every specific legal status category the service has served recently. — Specificity reveals genuine, current awareness rather than a general assumption.
  • Ask what happens when a client's specific status is genuinely unclear. — A confident, specific answer reveals a genuine process, not improvisation.

Evidence base

[42] WHO's Competency Standards explicitly distinguish these legal status categories throughout, noting that access to health care and legal entitlements vary meaningfully by status and by country, and that health workers need specific awareness of this rather than a single generalised assumption.

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.

8.8

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.

In plain terms: Every client receives the same care and the same documentation regardless of immigration status — no lower standard, no incomplete record, no 'off the books.'

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability Full Full Full Full

Why this matters

The principle is identical across facility types. An undocumented client cared for informally has no care plan, no supervision, no protection. A refugee given less because 'they won't complain' is discriminated against. Same care, same record, status not asked, funding separate.

What good looks like

  • Care and documentation are genuinely consistent regardless of status.
  • Staff are specifically trained on this principle, not assumed to understand it.
  • Confidentiality protection is applied equally without exception.

Common failure modes

  • Care or documentation practice differs based on a client's known or assumed status.
  • No specific training addresses this principle.
  • Status-related information is handled less carefully than other confidential information.

Worked example

In practice
A 120-client agency serving undocumented clients informally.
BeforeUndocumented clients were served by sympathetic caregivers without a care plan or agency record 'to protect them.' No supervision. No medication list. One client's deterioration went unnoticed for weeks.
ActionA written policy: every client is registered, assessed, planned, supervised, and documented identically; status is not asked; funding is the administrator's matter. All informally served clients were brought into the system. The agency's data practices were reviewed to ensure no pathway to immigration authorities.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the policy, the data review, and 10 records of previously informal clients now fully documented. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Ask: is every person we serve on our register with a care plan?
  2. Write the policy.
  3. Bring every client into the system.
  4. Confirm your data does not reach immigration authorities.
The most common mistake: Protecting undocumented clients by not documenting them.

Self-assessment questions

1. Is the same standard of care applied and documented the same way regardless of a client's immigration or legal status? — Genuinely equal treatment, not a lesser or informal standard for undocumented clients.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
2. Are staff specifically trained that immigration status is never a reason to withhold or alter care or documentation? — Specific, documented training, not assumed understanding.
Evidence: Staff training record
3. Is client information protected with the same confidentiality standard regardless of status, with no informal sharing of status-related information? — The same confidentiality protection extended to every client, without exception.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • The principle is understood by caregivers but not consistently by administrative or scheduling staff. — A client's first interaction is often with administrative staff, where the same principle needs to hold.
  • Care is consistent but documentation habits vary informally based on individual staff assumptions. — Consistency needs to extend to documentation practice specifically, not only the clinical care itself.
  • The principle is followed but has never been specifically, formally trained.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current practice for any differential treatment based on status.
Week 2 Establish specific staff training on this principle, covering all staff, not only caregiving roles.
Week 3 Confirm documentation practice is genuinely consistent regardless of status.
Ongoing Reinforce training periodically, particularly for new staff.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
OBSERVE Care standard observation Observes whether care and documentation practice is genuinely consistent regardless of client status.
DOCUMENT Staff training review Reviews training records confirming staff understand immigration status is never a basis for differential care.
ASK Confidentiality practice interview Asks staff how client status information, where known, is protected.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask administrative staff, not only caregivers, about this principle. — This reveals whether the principle genuinely extends beyond caregiving staff.
  • Ask how client status information, where it becomes known, is protected. — A specific, confident answer reveals genuine practice, not just a stated value.

Evidence base

[43] Equal standard of care and documentation regardless of immigration or legal status, without differential record-keeping practice, is established practice in international guidance on healthcare access for migrant and refugee populations.

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.

8.9

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

Core

Staff reflective practice and bias awareness genuinely extends to how immigrant caregivers themselves are treated by the organization, clients, and families — not limited to awareness of bias toward migrant clients alone, given a caregiver can face genuine discrimination in the course of their own employment.

In plain terms: The agency's work on bias and reflection includes how immigrant caregivers themselves are treated — by clients, by colleagues, by managers — not only how clients are treated.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Adapted Full

Why this matters

Bias runs in every direction. A client who refuses a caregiver because of their race. A colleague who mocks an accent. A manager who assumes the immigrant caregiver will accept worse shifts. The agency's reflective practice must include this: what do immigrant caregivers experience, from clients and from the organisation? How does the agency respond when a client is racist toward a caregiver? Is the caregiver's dignity protected as the client's is? A written response to client discrimination against staff, and a forum where immigrant caregivers can raise their experience, are the minimum.

What good looks like

  • Bias awareness training genuinely covers discrimination toward immigrant caregivers themselves.
  • A real, known reporting process exists for a caregiver experiencing this.
  • The organization genuinely, actively supports a caregiver who reports this concern.

Common failure modes

  • Bias awareness training addresses only bias toward clients, not caregivers.
  • No known process exists for a caregiver to report discrimination they experience.
  • A caregiver reporting this concern is left to manage the situation without organizational support.

Worked example

In practice
A 150-client agency with a majority immigrant workforce and no policy on discrimination against staff.
BeforeCaregivers reported clients refusing them on racial grounds, being called names, being treated as servants. The agency reassigned the caregiver and said nothing to the client. Caregivers felt the agency sided with clients. No forum existed.
ActionA policy on client discrimination against staff was written: the agency does not accept racial or ethnic refusal of a caregiver; the client is told this, and offered a conversation; persistent discrimination is grounds for ending service. A quarterly forum for immigrant caregivers to raise experiences with management was created. Reflective practice sessions include staff-directed bias. Managers were trained.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the policy, two cases where clients were addressed (one service ended), forum minutes, and interviewed two immigrant caregivers who described feeling backed. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Ask immigrant caregivers what they experience from clients and colleagues.
  2. Write a policy: the agency does not accept discriminatory refusal of staff.
  3. Create a forum for immigrant caregivers.
  4. Add staff-directed bias to reflective practice.
The most common mistake: Quietly reassigning the caregiver when a client is racist — the caregiver learns the agency will not defend them.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does bias awareness training address discrimination immigrant caregivers might experience? — Real, specific coverage, not training focused only on bias toward clients.
Evidence: Bias awareness training content review
2. Is there a known process for a caregiver to report discrimination they experience? — A real, accessible process, not an assumption a caregiver would simply tolerate this.
Evidence: Caregiver discrimination reporting process
3. Does the organization genuinely support a caregiver who reports this concern? — Real, active support, not a caregiver expected to resolve it alone.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Training mentions this direction of bias but doesn't provide specific, practical guidance for caregivers or supervisors. — Concrete, practical guidance is what makes this awareness genuinely actionable, not acknowledgment alone.
  • A reporting process exists but caregivers report uncertainty about whether using it would be genuinely welcomed. — Genuine psychological safety in using this process matters as much as the process technically existing.
  • Support exists for severe incidents but not for the more common, subtler forms of bias caregivers may experience.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current bias awareness training for genuine coverage of discrimination toward caregivers.
Week 2 Establish specific, practical guidance and a known reporting process for caregivers.
Week 3 Train supervisors on genuinely supporting a caregiver who reports this concern.
Ongoing Extend genuine attention to subtler, more common forms of bias, not only severe incidents.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Training content review Reviews bias awareness training for genuine coverage of discrimination toward immigrant caregivers.
DOCUMENT Reporting process review Reviews the specific, known process for a caregiver to report discrimination experienced.
ASK Caregiver support interview Asks a caregiver whether they would feel genuinely supported reporting this kind of concern.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask a caregiver whether they would feel genuinely comfortable reporting discrimination from a client or family member. — A specific, honest answer reveals genuine psychological safety, not an assumption a process alone is sufficient.
  • Ask a supervisor how they would specifically support a caregiver who raised this kind of concern. — A specific, thoughtful answer reveals genuine, practical readiness, not a stated policy alone.

Evidence base

[44] WHO Competency Standards 8 and 9 require structured awareness of bias and its impact, with genuine application of this principle extending to recognizing and addressing bias directed at immigrant workers within the care relationship itself, not limited to bias affecting migrant clients alone.

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.

8.10

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, patient-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.

In plain terms: When a migrant or refugee client moves, the agency helps their care continue — a portable summary, a handover to the next provider, a follow-up call — not 'we can't do anything once they leave.'

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability N/A Full Adapted Full

Why this matters

This is the home care version of PHC 8.8. Refugee and migrant clients move for housing, work, family, or status reasons. The care plan, medication list, and knowledge of the client's needs are valuable to whoever provides care next. Continuity support: a portable summary in the client's hand, in their language and the destination's; a handover to the next provider where known; the agency's contact number; a follow-up call for high-need clients. It cannot guarantee continuity; it makes it possible.

What good looks like

  • The service actively supports continuity when a client relocates.
  • A genuine, portable summary reflects real, accumulated understanding of the client.
  • Active handover is genuinely attempted when a new provider becomes known.

Common failure modes

  • Relocation is treated as an automatic, unavoidable end to continuity.
  • Any summary provided is generic, not reflecting genuine accumulated understanding.
  • No handover is attempted, even when a new provider is known.

Worked example

In practice
A 100-client agency serving refugee clients who relocated frequently.
BeforeWhen a client moved, service ended. No summary, no handover. A client with complex medication needs moved to another city; the new agency started from nothing; medications were missed for two weeks.
ActionA relocation protocol was written: any client indicating a move receives a portable care summary (needs, care plan, medication list, contacts) in their language and English; if the destination is known, the summary is sent to the local agency or NGO with consent; the agency's number is on the summary; high-need clients receive a follow-up call at two weeks. Community organisations help maintain contact.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 8 relocation cases with summaries issued and 5 with documented handovers; follow-up calls logged. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Ask what you gave the last client who moved. If nothing, that is the gap.
  2. Create a portable care summary template.
  3. Send it to the destination provider with consent.
  4. Phone high-need clients at two weeks.
The most common mistake: Ending care at the door when the client leaves — the summary in their hand is the continuity.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does the service actively support continuity when a client relocates, not treat relocation as an automatic end to continuity? — Real, active support, not passive acceptance that continuity simply ends.
Evidence: Relocation continuity support process
2. Is a portable, client-held summary of care needs genuinely provided, capturing the accumulated understanding built over time? — A real, usable summary reflecting genuine accumulated understanding, not a generic intake form.
Evidence: Portable care summary documentation
3. Where a new provider is known, is active handover genuinely attempted, not assumed impossible? — A real, attempted handover, not an assumption that contact with a future provider isn't achievable.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • A summary is provided but isn't updated close to the point of relocation, quickly becoming outdated. — A summary's real value depends on reflecting the client's genuinely current status at the time they carry it forward.
  • Handover is attempted when the new provider is known well in advance but not for sudden, unplanned relocations. — Sudden relocation doesn't reduce a client's genuine need for continuity support.
  • Support exists in principle but staff aren't confident in how to actually provide a portable summary in practice.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Review current practice for genuine continuity support versus assumed end at relocation.
Week 2 Establish a standard, portable care summary format reflecting genuine accumulated understanding.
Week 3 Train staff on attempting genuine handover when a new provider becomes known.
Ongoing Confirm summaries are updated close to the actual point of relocation.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Relocation support process review Reviews the service's actual process for supporting continuity when a client relocates.
DOCUMENT Portable summary review Reviews whether clients genuinely receive a portable summary reflecting real, accumulated understanding.
ASK Handover attempt interview Asks staff whether they've genuinely attempted handover to a new provider when one becomes known.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask for a real, recent example of continuity support provided to a relocating client. — A real example reveals whether this is genuine practice, not an assumed impossibility.
  • Ask to see an actual client-held summary and check how current and specific it genuinely is. — A specific, current document is the real evidence of genuine support, not a stale or generic one.

Evidence base

[45] Continuity of care as genuine infrastructure, distinct from an assumption that relocation automatically ends the possibility of continuity, is established practice for protecting health outcomes in mobile and displaced populations specifically.

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.

← Home Care Standards — all standards
Self-assess against these criteria →
← Standard 7 — Governance & Staffing
© 2026 Accréditation Sans Frontières · PHIG · Sheni Network