ASF Standards · Primary Health Clinic · Standard 4
Standard 4 — Acute & Same-Day Care
Criteria in this standard
4.1 — Red Flag Symptoms Are Actively Screened at Intake, Not Only by the Clinician Later
4.2 — Same-Day Access Is Genuinely Available, Not Assumed Adequate Without Measurement
4.3 — Telephone or Remote Triage Follows a Structured, Validated Protocol
4.4 — Atypical Presentations Receive Genuine Consideration, Not Dismissed as Benign by Default
4.5 — A Dedicated, Ready Emergency Response Exists for a Deteriorating Patient
4.2 — Same-Day Access Is Genuinely Available, Not Assumed Adequate Without Measurement
4.3 — Telephone or Remote Triage Follows a Structured, Validated Protocol
4.4 — Atypical Presentations Receive Genuine Consideration, Not Dismissed as Benign by Default
4.5 — A Dedicated, Ready Emergency Response Exists for a Deteriorating Patient
4.1
Red Flag Symptoms Are Actively Screened at Intake, Not Only by the Clinician Later
Non-Negotiable
Staff performing patient intake and registration — not only the treating clinician — are trained to recognise defined red flag symptoms and immediately escalate, with a specific process for taking the patient back for urgent assessment right away, not left waiting in a normal queue.
In plain terms: Reception and intake staff — not just the doctor — know the red flag symptoms that mean 'see this person now' and have a way to escalate immediately.
| Facility category | Crisis | Transition | Small | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | Full | Full | Adapted | Full |
Why this matters
The patient with crushing chest pain tells the receptionist, who books them for 3pm. The child with a non-blanching rash waits behind six coughs. The intake staff are the first contact and the first filter; if they do not know the red flags, the red flags wait. A short list — chest pain, breathing difficulty, severe headache with fever, non-blanching rash, sudden weakness, heavy bleeding, suicidal statements — with a rule ('tell a clinician immediately, do not book') and a demonstrated route, turns reception into a safety net. It takes 30 minutes to train and is refreshed annually.
What good looks like
- Intake staff are specifically, genuinely trained to recognise defined red flags.
- A specific, immediate escalation process exists and is followed.
- A dedicated space is genuinely ready for a patient identified with a potential emergency.
Common failure modes
- Red flag recognition is left entirely to the clinician, not intake staff.
- No specific, immediate escalation process exists beyond the normal queue.
- No dedicated space is genuinely ready when a red flag is identified.
Worked example
In practice
A 5-room health centre where reception booked patients by request.
BeforeReception asked 'what is it about?' and offered the next slot. A patient with chest pain was booked for the afternoon and had a myocardial infarction in the waiting room. Reception staff had no red flag training and no clear way to interrupt a clinician.
ActionA ten-item red flag list was written for the practice's population, printed at reception and at the phone. The rule: any red flag → tell a clinician immediately by walking to the consulting room or using the intercom, do not book. All intake staff completed a 30-minute session with scenarios. A monthly scenario refresher was added. The escalation is logged.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the list, training records, and the escalation log (nine escalations in three months, all appropriate). Asked a receptionist what she would do for a patient reporting sudden facial drooping; she described immediate escalation. Verified.
If you are starting from zero — do this first
- Ask your receptionist what they would do if a patient said 'chest pain.'
- Write a ten-item red flag list for your population.
- Train all intake staff — 30 minutes with scenarios.
- Define and test the escalation route.
The most common mistake: Assuming reception will 'use common sense' — common sense books the chest pain for 3pm because that is the next slot.
Self-assessment questions
1. Are staff performing intake and registration specifically trained to recognise defined red flag symptoms? — Genuine, specific training for intake staff, not a responsibility left only to the clinician.
Evidence: Intake staff red flag training record
Evidence: Intake staff red flag training record
2. Is there a specific, immediate escalation process when a red flag is recognised at intake? — A real, immediate process, not a patient left in the normal queue despite a recognised red flag.
Evidence: Red flag escalation protocol
Evidence: Red flag escalation protocol
3. Is there a specific, ready space for a patient identified with a potential emergency at intake? — A real, dedicated, ready space, not an improvised response when a red flag is identified.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer
- Training happened once at hiring but hasn't been refreshed or reinforced since. — Red flag recognition is a skill that benefits from genuine, periodic reinforcement, not a single training session.
- Escalation happens for the most obvious red flags but staff are less confident with subtler ones. — The genuine protective value of this training depends on covering the full defined list, not only the most obvious signs.
- A ready space exists but is sometimes occupied, without a clear, defined alternative.
Implementation plan
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Review current intake practice for genuine red flag recognition training. |
| Week 2 | Train intake staff specifically on the defined red flag list and escalation process. |
| Week 3 | Establish or confirm a ready space, with a defined alternative if it's occupied. |
| Ongoing | Refresh intake staff training on red flag recognition periodically. |
How the Monitor verifies this
| Method | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| DOCUMENT | Intake training review | Reviews training records confirming intake staff are specifically trained on defined red flags. |
| ASK | Recognition and escalation interview | Asks an intake staff member to describe specific red flags and what they'd do if one were identified. |
| OBSERVE | Ready space check | Confirms a specific space is genuinely ready for an emergency identified at intake. |
Supervisor tips
- Ask an intake or registration staff member directly to name a specific red flag and what they'd do. — A specific, confident answer reveals genuine training, not assumed general awareness.
- Ask what happens if the dedicated emergency space is already occupied. — A specific, confident answer reveals a genuinely thought-through process, not an assumption it won't happen.
Evidence base
[16] Established urgent care red flag policy requires that staff responsible for patient intake, not only the treating provider, be able to recognise defined red flag signs and symptoms and immediately take the patient to a space kept ready for emergencies, so there is no delay in 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.
4.2
Same-Day Access Is Genuinely Available, Not Assumed Adequate Without Measurement
Non-Negotiable
The practice actively measures whether patients requesting a genuine same-day need can actually be seen that day, with a specific, tracked target — not an assumption that same-day access is adequate without ever checking real appointment availability against real demand.
In plain terms: The practice measures whether patients who genuinely need to be seen today actually are — with a target — rather than assuming access is fine.
| Facility category | Crisis | Transition | Small | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | Adapted | Full | Adapted | Full |
Why this matters
'We always fit people in' is a belief. 'Last month, 78% of same-day requests were seen the same day' is a measurement. The gap between them is the patients who went to the emergency department, or waited three days with a worsening infection, or gave up. Same-day access is the difference between primary care as a first resort and primary care as an obstacle. Measuring it — how many asked, how many were seen — reveals whether the appointment system works, whether there are enough slots, whether the triage is right. Then it can be fixed.
What good looks like
- Same-day access is genuinely, actively measured against real demand.
- A specific, defined target exists and is tracked.
- A genuine response follows when access falls short of target.
Common failure modes
- Same-day access adequacy is assumed without genuine measurement.
- No specific target exists; adequacy is judged by general impression.
- Shortfalls, if identified, produce no genuine response.
Worked example
In practice
A 6-room health centre that believed it offered good same-day access.
BeforeNo measurement. Clinicians believed 'everyone urgent gets seen.' When the Coordinator logged same-day requests for two weeks: 140 requests, 82 seen same day (59%). The rest were booked for the next day or later; 12 went to the emergency department that evening.
ActionA same-day access measure was defined: proportion of patients requesting a same-day appointment for a genuine need (per triage) who are seen that day. Target 90%. Slots were restructured: 40% of daily capacity held for same-day, released at 8am. A duty clinician handles overflow. The measure is reported weekly.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 12 weeks of same-day access data: 59% → 91%. Reviewed the slot structure and the duty clinician rota. Verified.
If you are starting from zero — do this first
- For two weeks, log every same-day request and whether it was met.
- Calculate the proportion. Under 80% is a problem.
- Restructure slots to hold capacity for same-day.
- Report weekly.
The most common mistake: Believing access is good because clinicians are busy — busy and accessible are not the same.
Self-assessment questions
1. Does the practice actively measure whether genuine same-day requests are actually accommodated that day? — Real, calculated measurement, not an assumption of adequacy.
Evidence: Same-day access measurement record
Evidence: Same-day access measurement record
2. Is there a specific, defined target for same-day access, not a vague sense that most patients get seen? — A specific, tracked target, not an undefined general impression.
Evidence: Same-day access target documentation
Evidence: Same-day access target documentation
3. When same-day access falls short of target, is there a genuine response, not a measure tracked without consequence? — Real, active response to a shortfall, not passive tracking alone.
Evidence: Access shortfall response record
Evidence: Access shortfall response record
Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer
- Measurement happens but doesn't distinguish genuine same-day medical need from lower-urgency requests. — Genuine measurement needs to reflect real clinical urgency, not treat all same-day requests identically.
- A target exists but hasn't been reviewed to confirm it's actually appropriate for this practice's real patient volume. — A target should genuinely reflect this practice's own circumstances, not an arbitrary figure.
- Shortfalls are identified but the response addresses only the immediate day, not underlying causes.
Implementation plan
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Review current same-day access practice for genuine measurement versus assumed adequacy. |
| Week 2 | Establish a specific, defined same-day access target appropriate to this practice. |
| Week 3 | Build a genuine response process for identified shortfalls, addressing underlying causes. |
| Ongoing | Track same-day access against target on a regular schedule. |
How the Monitor verifies this
| Method | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| DOCUMENT | Access measurement review | Reviews whether the practice genuinely measures same-day access against actual demand. |
| DOCUMENT | Target definition review | Reviews whether a specific, defined same-day access target exists. |
| DOCUMENT | Shortfall response review | Reviews evidence of genuine response when same-day access falls short. |
Supervisor tips
- Ask for the practice's actual, current same-day access rate, not a general impression. — A specific, real number reveals genuine measurement, not an assumption.
- Ask what happened the last time same-day access genuinely fell short of target. — A real example reveals whether measurement leads to real action.
Evidence base
[17] A substantial majority of primary and urgent care activity in many health systems consists of patients requesting same-day services, establishing genuine same-day access as a core, high-volume function of primary care requiring active measurement, not passive assumption of adequacy.
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.
4.3
Telephone or Remote Triage Follows a Structured, Validated Protocol
Non-Negotiable
Telephone or remote triage of patients requesting same-day care follows a structured, validated protocol — not the individual judgement of whoever happens to answer the phone, applied inconsistently from one call to the next.
In plain terms: When a patient phones with a same-day need, the triage decision follows a structured, validated protocol — not each nurse's or receptionist's personal judgment.
| Facility category | Crisis | Transition | Small | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | N/A | Full | Adapted | Full |
Why this matters
Telephone triage decides who is seen now, who is seen today, who is seen this week, and who is given advice. Done by unstructured judgment, it depends on who answers the phone, how busy they are, and how persuasive the caller is. Validated protocols — symptom-based algorithms with defined questions and defined outcomes — make triage consistent, safe, and auditable. They protect the patient from being under-triaged and the staff from being blamed for a decision the protocol would have supported. The protocol must be one the practice has adopted, trained on, and audits.
What good looks like
- Triage genuinely follows a structured, validated protocol.
- The protocol is consistently used across all staff conducting triage.
- The protocol actively prompts for red flag symptoms, not passive reliance on patient disclosure.
Common failure modes
- Triage depends on individual judgement, applied inconsistently.
- Protocol use varies significantly between different staff members.
- Red flag identification relies on the patient volunteering concerning details unprompted.
Worked example
In practice
A 5-room health centre where reception triaged by asking 'is it urgent?'
BeforeReception decided who got a same-day slot based on the caller's answer. A child with a two-day fever and lethargy was booked for the next day; she had meningitis. A patient with a minor rash was seen the same day because he insisted. There was no protocol and no training.
ActionA validated telephone triage protocol was adopted (national nurse triage system). Clinical triage moved from reception to a trained nurse. Every call is triaged with the protocol's structured questions, recorded, and given a defined outcome: emergency, same day, this week, advice. Reception takes messages and routes clinical calls to the triage nurse. A monthly audit of 20 calls checks protocol adherence and outcomes.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed the protocol, the nurse training records, and 20 audited calls with protocol-consistent outcomes. Listened to a recorded triage call. Verified.
If you are starting from zero — do this first
- Who triages phone calls in your practice? With what protocol?
- Adopt a validated telephone triage system.
- Train a nurse and route clinical calls to them.
- Audit 20 calls a month.
The most common mistake: Letting the caller's insistence determine urgency — the sickest patients are often the least insistent.
Self-assessment questions
1. Does telephone or remote triage follow a structured, validated protocol, not individual judgement alone? — A real, structured protocol, not inconsistent practice dependent on who answers the call.
Evidence: Triage protocol documentation
Evidence: Triage protocol documentation
2. Is the protocol consistently used across different staff members conducting triage? — Genuine, consistent application, not a protocol used by some staff but not others.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
3. Does the protocol specifically prompt for red flag symptoms, not rely on the patient volunteering concerning details? — Active, structured questioning for red flags, not passive reliance on what the patient happens to mention.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer
- The protocol is used consistently by experienced staff but less reliably by newer team members. — A structured protocol needs to be genuinely reliable regardless of individual staff experience level.
- The protocol covers common presentations well but is less developed for less typical symptom patterns. — Less common presentations still carry real risk and deserve the same structured approach.
- Red flag prompting happens but isn't consistently documented, making genuine adherence hard to verify.
Implementation plan
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Review current telephone triage practice for structured protocol use versus individual judgement. |
| Week 2 | Establish or strengthen a structured, validated triage protocol. |
| Week 3 | Train all staff conducting triage on consistent protocol use. |
| Ongoing | Audit triage documentation for genuine, consistent protocol adherence. |
How the Monitor verifies this
| Method | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| DOCUMENT | Protocol documentation review | Reviews the actual, structured triage protocol used for same-day requests. |
| OBSERVE | Consistency observation | Observes or reviews records for consistent protocol use across different staff members. |
| DOCUMENT | Red flag prompting review | Reviews whether the protocol actively prompts for red flag symptoms. |
Supervisor tips
- Ask to see the actual triage protocol document, not a general description of practice. — A specific, real protocol reveals genuine structure, not assumed consistency.
- Ask a newer staff member to walk through the triage protocol for a specific presentation. — This tests whether the protocol genuinely reaches all staff, not only the most experienced.
Evidence base
[18] Structured telephone triage protocols for patients requesting same-day primary care appointments are established, evidence-based practice, distinct from unstructured individual judgement, with research demonstrating their effectiveness in managing primary care workload while maintaining patient safety.
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.
4.4
Atypical Presentations Receive Genuine Consideration, Not Dismissed as Benign by Default
Non-Negotiable
When a patient's presentation is atypical or overlaps with a benign condition, the clinician genuinely considers serious alternative diagnoses before defaulting to a benign explanation — not treating overlap with common, self-limiting illness as sufficient reason to rule out something more serious.
In plain terms: When symptoms could be something serious or something ordinary, the clinician actively considers the serious option and documents why it was ruled out — not defaults to the benign diagnosis.
| Facility category | Crisis | Transition | Small | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | N/A | Full | Full | Full |
Why this matters
Most chest pain in primary care is musculoskeletal. Most headaches are tension. Most abdominal pain is benign. The clinician sees a hundred benign cases for every serious one, and the mind adapts: this is probably nothing. That adaptation is how the aortic dissection is sent home with antacids and the subarachnoid haemorrhage is treated as migraine. Diagnostic safety means the clinician consciously asks 'what serious condition could this be?' and documents the answer — the red flags asked about, the examination done, the reason the serious option was excluded. The documentation is the discipline.
What good looks like
- Serious alternative diagnoses are genuinely, actively considered for atypical presentations.
- Diagnostic reasoning, including ruled-out alternatives, is genuinely documented.
- A defined safety-net process exists for uncertain presentations.
Common failure modes
- Overlap with a common, benign condition is treated as sufficient to rule out something more serious.
- Diagnostic reasoning isn't documented beyond the final diagnosis reached.
- No defined safety-net exists for a patient whose presentation remains uncertain.
Worked example
In practice
A 4-room health centre with a diagnostic delay incident.
BeforeA 55-year-old man with 'indigestion' was given antacids on two visits; the third visit was to the emergency department with a myocardial infarction. The consultation notes recorded 'epigastric pain — likely dyspepsia — antacids.' No cardiac risk assessment, no ECG, no documented consideration of cardiac cause.
ActionThe practice adopted a 'serious alternative' discipline: for defined presentations (chest pain, headache, abdominal pain, back pain, fatigue, weight loss), the consultation template includes a 'serious causes considered' field requiring the clinician to name the serious alternative and document what excluded it. A monthly case review discusses one diagnostic challenge. Clinicians completed a half-day on diagnostic error.
AfterThe Monitor reviewed 30 consultation records for the defined presentations: all documented serious alternatives and exclusion reasoning. Reviewed three monthly case review records. Verified.
If you are starting from zero — do this first
- Pull ten chest pain and ten headache consultations. Does the note say what serious cause was considered?
- Add a 'serious causes considered' field to templates for high-risk presentations.
- Start a monthly diagnostic case review.
- Train on diagnostic error.
The most common mistake: Diagnosing the common thing because it is common — the note should show the serious thing was actively ruled out.
Self-assessment questions
1. Does the clinician genuinely consider serious alternative diagnoses for an atypical or overlapping presentation? — Real, active consideration, not immediate default to the more common, benign explanation.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
2. Is there a specific process for documenting why a serious alternative was considered and ruled out? — A real, documented reasoning process, not an assumption reflected only in the final diagnosis.
Evidence: Diagnostic reasoning documentation
Evidence: Diagnostic reasoning documentation
3. Is there a defined safety-net process — return advice, follow-up — for a patient whose presentation remains uncertain? — A real, defined safety-net, not the patient sent away with no clear guidance if symptoms don't resolve as expected.
Evidence: Safety-net advice protocol
Evidence: Safety-net advice protocol
Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer
- Consideration of serious alternatives is genuine for well-known atypical presentations but less consistent for rarer ones. — Every genuinely atypical presentation deserves the same careful consideration, not only the most well-known examples.
- Safety-net advice is given verbally but not consistently documented or reinforced in writing. — Documented, reinforced safety-net advice is more reliable than a verbal mention alone.
- Reasoning is documented for complex cases but less consistently for presentations that seem straightforward.
Implementation plan
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Review current diagnostic practice for genuine consideration of serious alternatives in atypical presentations. |
| Week 2 | Train staff on documenting diagnostic reasoning, including alternatives considered and ruled out. |
| Week 3 | Establish a defined, consistently applied safety-net advice process. |
| Ongoing | Review cases with uncertain presentations for genuine adherence to safety-net practice. |
How the Monitor verifies this
| Method | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| OBSERVE | Diagnostic reasoning observation | Observes an actual consultation for genuine consideration of serious alternatives, not default assumption. |
| DOCUMENT | Reasoning documentation review | Reviews documentation for evidence that serious alternatives were genuinely considered and ruled out. |
| DOCUMENT | Safety-net protocol review | Reviews the defined safety-net process for patients with uncertain presentations. |
Supervisor tips
- Ask a clinician to walk through their reasoning for a real, recent atypical presentation. — A specific, thoughtful answer reveals genuine consideration, not default assumption.
- Ask what safety-net advice a patient with an uncertain presentation actually received. — A specific, real answer reveals whether this is genuine practice, not just policy language.
Evidence base
[19] Structured approaches to red flag identification are established as necessary in primary care because a substantial number of serious conditions present with atypical or nonspecific symptoms resembling benign, self-limiting illness, requiring genuine differentiation rather than default assumption of the more common explanation.
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.
4.5
A Dedicated, Ready Emergency Response Exists for a Deteriorating Patient
Core
The practice maintains a specific, dedicated process and space for a patient who deteriorates or presents in genuine crisis while at the clinic — emergency equipment checked and ready, staff roles defined, a clear pathway to emergency services — not an improvised response assembled in the moment.
In plain terms: The practice has a defined process and a physical space for a patient who collapses or arrives in crisis — with the equipment there, staff who know their roles, and a rehearsed plan.
| Facility category | Crisis | Transition | Small | Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability | Full | Full | Adapted | Full |
Why this matters
Primary care is not designed for emergencies, but emergencies come anyway: the anaphylaxis after a vaccine, the cardiac arrest in the waiting room, the child with a seizure. The practice needs a space (a treatment room that can be cleared in seconds), equipment (oxygen, adrenaline, airway kit, AED), a process (who does what, who calls the ambulance, where the patient goes), and rehearsal (a drill twice a year). A practice that improvises will lose minutes it does not have.
What good looks like
- A specific, dedicated space and process are genuinely ready for a deteriorating patient.
- Emergency equipment is genuinely checked and verified as functional.
- Staff roles are specifically defined and confidently known.
Common failure modes
- No specific process exists beyond an assumption staff would respond appropriately.
- Emergency equipment condition is assumed, not verified.
- Staff are uncertain about their specific role during a genuine emergency.
Worked example
In practice
A 5-room health centre with emergency equipment in a locked cupboard and no designated space.
BeforeWhen a patient collapsed in the corridor, staff moved him to the floor of a consulting room with a patient in it, searched for the emergency kit (locked; key with the practice manager who was out), and called an ambulance from reception. Eleven minutes passed before oxygen was applied.
ActionThe largest treatment room was designated as the emergency space, kept clear of stored items, with the emergency kit on an open shelf. Roles were written: clinician leads, nurse manages airway and drugs, receptionist calls ambulance and clears the way, another staff member manages other patients. A drill is run twice a year and debriefed. The kit is checked daily (linking to the ambulatory 5.2 equivalent).
AfterThe Monitor found the designated room clear with the kit accessible, reviewed the role card and two drill records, and asked three staff their roles; all answered. Verified.
If you are starting from zero — do this first
- Where is your emergency kit? Is it locked? Who has the key?
- Designate one room as the emergency space and keep it clear.
- Write a role card: who leads, who calls, who clears.
- Run a drill this month.
The most common mistake: Locking the emergency kit to prevent theft — the emergency happens when the key-holder is out.
Self-assessment questions
1. Is there a specific, dedicated space and process ready for a patient who deteriorates while at the clinic? — A real, ready process, not something assembled improvised in the moment.
Evidence: Emergency response protocol documentation
Evidence: Emergency response protocol documentation
2. Is emergency equipment genuinely checked and ready, not assumed functional without verification? — Real, verified readiness, not assumed equipment condition.
Evidence: Equipment check record
Evidence: Equipment check record
3. Are staff roles specifically defined for this scenario, with a clear pathway to emergency services? — Specific, practiced role clarity, not general awareness that an emergency plan exists somewhere.
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Evidence: N/A — tested directly
Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer
- Equipment is present but checking happens irregularly, without a defined schedule. — A defined, regular check schedule is what makes equipment readiness genuinely reliable.
- Roles are defined on paper but haven't been practiced through an actual drill. — A rehearsed response is more reliable under real, high-pressure conditions than a plan read once.
- The pathway to emergency services is known by senior staff but not consistently by newer team members.
Implementation plan
| When | What |
|---|---|
| Week 1 | Review current emergency readiness for genuine, verified equipment and defined roles. |
| Week 2 | Establish a regular equipment check schedule and confirm functional readiness. |
| Week 3 | Brief all staff on their specific role and the pathway to emergency services. |
| Ongoing | Conduct periodic drills to genuinely practice the emergency response. |
How the Monitor verifies this
| Method | What | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| OBSERVE | Emergency readiness check | Physically checks the dedicated emergency space and equipment for genuine readiness. |
| DOCUMENT | Equipment check record review | Reviews records of regular equipment verification, not assumed function. |
| ASK | Role clarity interview | Asks staff to describe their specific role during a genuine on-site emergency. |
Supervisor tips
- Ask to see the actual, current equipment check record, not a general assurance it's maintained. — A specific, real record reveals genuine verification, not assumed readiness.
- Ask a newer staff member their specific role during a genuine on-site emergency. — This reveals whether readiness genuinely extends to all staff, not only the most experienced.
Evidence base
[20] Dedicated space, ready emergency equipment, and defined staff roles for a deteriorating patient, distinct from improvised response, are established practice in urgent and primary care safety policy for managing genuine on-site emergencies.
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.