EDITIONEN·FR·ქართ
ASF Logo

Accréditation Sans Frontières

International Accreditation of Healthcare Facilities

Start accreditation  
ASF Standards · Medical Transport · Standard 9

Standard 9 — Sustainable Care

5 criteria · 1 core · 4 standard-level · Version 1.0 · Aligned to ISQua EEA Principle 6, 6th Edition

Criteria in this standard

9.1 — Fleet Fuel Consumption and Emissions Are Genuinely Tracked, Not Left Unmeasured
9.2 — Route and Dispatch Planning Genuinely Considers Fuel Efficiency
9.3 — Vehicle Procurement and Maintenance Genuinely Consider Environmental Impact
9.4 — Crew Are Genuinely Engaged in Sustainability Practice
9.5 — Sustainability Commitments Are Genuinely Reviewed, Not Static
9.1

Fleet Fuel Consumption and Emissions Are Genuinely Tracked, Not Left Unmeasured

Core

Fleet fuel consumption and emissions are genuinely tracked across the vehicle fleet — not an unexamined, unmeasured cost of operating a transport service, with no real data informing whether consumption is reasonable or improving.

In plain terms: The service actually tracks how much fuel its vehicles use — not just paying the fuel bill with no real data on whether it’s reasonable or improving.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability Adapted Full Full Full

Why this matters

This is marked Core because fuel consumption is genuinely the single largest, most direct environmental impact of a medical transport service — and it is also the area where real, measurable data most readily translates into genuine operational improvement. A service with no real tracking has no real basis for knowing whether its fuel use is reasonable, improving, or quietly growing.

What good looks like

  • Fuel consumption is genuinely tracked across the fleet.
  • Data is genuinely reviewed on a real schedule.
  • A real instance shows data genuinely informing a decision.

Common failure modes

  • Fuel is purchased and paid for, with no genuine per-vehicle or fleet-wide consumption tracking at all.

Worked example

In practice
A service with no fuel tracking system.
BeforeFuel purchases were recorded for accounting purposes only, with no genuine per-vehicle consumption data ever reviewed.
ActionA simple per-vehicle fuel log was introduced, genuinely reviewed monthly, revealing one vehicle with notably higher consumption that turned out to need maintenance.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the fuel log and the resulting maintenance action. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Introduce a simple per-vehicle fuel consumption log.
The most common mistake: Fuel purchases recorded only for accounting, with no genuine consumption data ever actually reviewed.

Self-assessment questions

1. Is fuel consumption genuinely tracked across the fleet? — A real, documented tracking system.
Evidence: Fuel consumption log
2. Is this data genuinely reviewed on a real schedule? — A real, periodic review.
Evidence: Review record
3. Is there a real instance of this data genuinely informing a decision? — A concrete, real example.
Evidence: Decision record

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Fuel data is logged but genuinely never reviewed by anyone.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1-2 Introduce a per-vehicle fuel log and a monthly review schedule.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Fuel log review Reviews the fuel log and evidence of genuine, periodic review.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask to see the actual fuel data, not just confirmation that fuel is purchased.

Evidence base

World Health Organization. WHO Guidance for Climate-Resilient and Environmentally Sustainable Health Care Facilities. Geneva: WHO; 2020.

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.

9.2

Route and Dispatch Planning Genuinely Considers Fuel Efficiency

Standard

Route and dispatch planning genuinely considers fuel efficiency alongside response time and patient need — not efficiency treated as entirely secondary with no genuine attention at all, while recognising that patient need and response time genuinely come first.

In plain terms: Patient need and response time always come first — but within that, dispatch planning has actually thought about fuel efficiency, including unnecessary idling.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability Adapted Full Full Full

Why this matters

Patient need and response time are genuinely non-negotiable priorities in medical transport — but this real priority can become an excuse to never genuinely consider efficiency at all, even in the many routine moments (idling between calls, non-urgent routing choices) where efficiency and patient care are not actually in tension.

What good looks like

  • Dispatch planning genuinely factors in efficiency where safe to do so.
  • A real instance shows a genuine efficiency improvement.
  • Idling is genuinely addressed.

Common failure modes

  • “Patient need comes first” is used as a reason to never genuinely consider efficiency even in routine, non-urgent moments.

Worked example

In practice
A service with a habitual idling pattern between calls.
BeforeVehicles routinely idled for extended periods between calls, a habit never genuinely examined.
ActionA genuine idling-reduction practice was introduced for non-emergency waiting periods, with crew input on what was actually practical.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed fuel data showing a genuine reduction. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Review idling patterns during non-emergency waiting periods and genuinely consider reduction with crew input.
The most common mistake: Treating “patient need comes first” as a blanket reason to never consider efficiency, even in clearly non-urgent moments.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does dispatch planning genuinely factor in fuel efficiency where safe? — A real, considered balance.
Evidence: Dispatch policy
2. Is there a real instance of a routing adjustment genuinely improving efficiency? — A concrete, real example.
Evidence: Routing record
3. Is unnecessary idling genuinely addressed? — A real, considered practice.
Evidence: Idling policy

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Idling is discussed informally but no genuine practice has actually changed.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1-2 Review idling patterns with crew input and introduce a genuine reduction practice.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Dispatch policy review Reviews the dispatch policy and fuel data trends.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask about idling specifically — it’s often the easiest, most overlooked efficiency gain.

Evidence base

Health Care Without Harm. Global Green and Healthy Hospitals Agenda. Reston: HCWH; 2020.

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.

9.3

Vehicle Procurement and Maintenance Genuinely Consider Environmental Impact

Standard

Decisions about vehicle procurement and maintenance genuinely factor in environmental impact and fuel efficiency alongside cost and clinical suitability — not sustainability treated as entirely irrelevant to fleet decisions.

In plain terms: When the service buys or maintains vehicles, it actually considers environmental impact alongside cost and clinical needs.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability Adapted Full Full Full

Why this matters

Vehicle procurement decisions compound across a fleet’s entire operational life, and genuine environmental consideration at this stage — alongside the non-negotiable requirement of clinical suitability — is where real, lasting impact reduction is actually achievable, more so than any later operational adjustment.

What good looks like

  • Procurement genuinely weighs environmental impact.
  • Maintenance is genuinely proactive for efficiency.
  • A real instance shows environmental impact genuinely influencing a decision.

Common failure modes

  • Vehicles are purchased purely on cost and clinical specification, with environmental impact never genuinely considered.

Worked example

In practice
A service replacing an ageing vehicle.
BeforeVehicle replacement decisions considered cost and clinical fit-out requirements only, with no genuine review of available fuel-efficient options.
ActionFuel efficiency was added as a genuine, documented criterion in the procurement comparison.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the procurement comparison document. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Add fuel efficiency as an explicit criterion in your next vehicle procurement comparison.
The most common mistake: Procurement decisions based purely on cost and clinical specification, with environmental impact never genuinely part of the comparison.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does procurement genuinely weigh environmental impact? — Real, documented consideration.
Evidence: Procurement criteria
2. Is maintenance genuinely proactive for efficiency? — A real, proactive practice.
Evidence: Maintenance schedule
3. Is there a real instance of environmental impact genuinely influencing a decision? — A concrete, real example.
Evidence: Procurement decision record

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Efficiency is mentioned informally but never actually appears as a documented decision criterion.

Implementation plan

When What
Before next purchase Add fuel efficiency as a documented procurement criterion.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Procurement record review Reviews the procurement comparison for genuine environmental consideration.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask for the actual procurement comparison document from the last vehicle purchase.

Evidence base

NHS England. Delivering a Net Zero National Health Service. London: NHS England; 2022.

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.

9.4

Crew Are Genuinely Engaged in Sustainability Practice

Standard

Crew genuinely understand and participate in the service’s sustainability practices — not a policy known only to management with no real reach to a workforce that spends most of its time on the road, away from any shared office.

In plain terms: Crew actually know what the service is doing to be more sustainable — not just the office staff who rarely see them.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability Adapted Full Full Full

Why this matters

Crew genuinely know actual road conditions, dispatch patterns, and idling habits in a way office-based management reviewing data from a distance may not — genuine engagement draws on this real, practical knowledge rather than treating sustainability as a policy decided entirely elsewhere.

What good looks like

  • Crew can genuinely describe a real practice.
  • Crew input is genuinely sought on road-level measures.
  • Communication genuinely reaches road-based crew.

Common failure modes

  • Updates are posted only at the dispatch office, which crew rarely visit in person.

Worked example

In practice
A service whose sustainability updates never reached crew.
BeforeSustainability updates were posted on an office noticeboard crew almost never saw.
ActionUpdates were moved to the dispatch communication channel crew genuinely use daily.
AfterThe Monitor interviewed crew who could describe a recent update. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Check whether current communication genuinely reaches road-based crew.
The most common mistake: Internal communication designed around an office setting that road-based crew genuinely never see.

Self-assessment questions

1. Can crew describe a genuine sustainability practice? — Real, demonstrated awareness.
Evidence: Crew interview
2. Is crew input genuinely sought? — Real, two-way engagement.
Evidence: Suggestion record
3. Does communication genuinely reach road-based crew? — Real, functioning communication.
Evidence: Crew interview

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • Office staff are aware but road-based crew genuinely are not.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Move communication to a channel that genuinely reaches road-based crew.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
ASK Crew interview Asks crew to describe a specific sustainability practice.

Supervisor tips

  • Interview road-based crew directly, not only dispatch or management staff.

Evidence base

United Nations Environment Programme. Sustainable Healthcare Facilities Guidance. Nairobi: UNEP; 2022.

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.

9.5

Sustainability Commitments Are Genuinely Reviewed, Not Static

Standard

The service’s sustainability goals and practices are genuinely reviewed and updated as circumstances change — not a document written once and never genuinely examined for whether it still reflects actual practice.

In plain terms: The service’s sustainability goals actually get revisited — not written once and left to go stale.

Facility category Crisis Transition Small Standard
Applicability Adapted Full Full Full

Why this matters

A document written once stops genuinely reflecting current practice as the fleet, routes, or dispatch patterns change. Real, periodic review is what keeps the commitment meaningful.

What good looks like

  • Goals are genuinely reviewed.
  • A real revision instance exists.
  • Responsibility is genuinely assigned.

Common failure modes

  • A document was written once and never revisited.

Worked example

In practice
A service whose sustainability statement predated a fleet upgrade.
BeforeThe statement made no mention of fuel-efficiency gains already achieved through newer vehicles.
ActionA named person was assigned annual review responsibility.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the updated, dated document. Verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

  1. Assign named review responsibility.
The most common mistake: A document nobody is specifically responsible for revisiting.

Self-assessment questions

1. Are goals genuinely reviewed? — A real, periodic review.
Evidence: Review schedule
2. Is there a real revision instance? — A concrete example.
Evidence: Revision history
3. Is responsibility genuinely assigned? — A real, named accountability.
Evidence: Assigned responsibility documentation

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

  • A schedule exists but hasn’t been followed consistently.

Implementation plan

When What
Week 1 Assign review responsibility and conduct the first review.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method What Detail
DOCUMENT Revision history review Reviews the document’s revision history.

Supervisor tips

  • Ask who is specifically responsible for review.

Evidence base

World Health Organization. Global Strategy on Digital Health 2020-2025. Geneva: WHO; 2021.

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.

← Medical Transport Standards — all standards
Standard 10 — Digital Care & AI →
© 2026 Accréditation Sans Frontières · PHIG · Sheni Network