Standards › ASF Health Standards v10 › Standard 2E
Standard 2E
Workforce
Workforce: how staff competence, health and safety, learning, feedback, working hours and speak-up protection are kept and checked.
The continued competency and ongoing performance of every workforce member is regularly evaluated against their actual job description and scope of practice — not competency assumed to remain current indefinitely once initial credentialing is complete.
Why it matters. Skills learned at hiring fade. Checking competence against the actual job, on a schedule, finds gaps before they harm patients.
What the surveyor checks
- Is ongoing competency evaluated on a defined schedule, not assumed to persist from initial hiring?
- Does this evaluation cover the person’s actual current job description and scope, not a generic check unrelated to their duties?
- When an evaluation identifies a performance gap, is there a defined response?
Documents
E-learning
No course linked yet.
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
Every workforce member has access to ongoing education — formal courses and training sessions, whether internal or external — to maintain the performance their role requires and develop their skills further, not education treated as a one-time induction event with nothing meaningful offered afterwards.
Why it matters. Staff who cannot learn new skills fall behind the care they are asked to give. Giving every staff member access to ongoing education keeps the workforce able to meet the standards.
What the surveyor checks
- Does every workforce member have ongoing access to education beyond initial induction?
- Are opportunities for skill development and extension offered, not only the minimum required to maintain current performance?
- Can staff asked directly describe an education opportunity they have taken in the past year?
Documents
E-learning
No course linked yet.
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
The facility protects the health and safety of its workforce while they carry out their duties — required vaccinations, personal protective equipment, prevention of manual handling and needlestick injuries — not staff safety treated as secondary to patient safety rather than an equally protected concern. This includes the wellbeing of staff, with support available after distressing events.
Why it matters. Health workers can catch infections and be hurt at work, and they can also carry infections to patients. Protecting their health, with required vaccinations and safe working conditions, protects everyone in the building.
What the surveyor checks
- Is personal protective equipment available and used by staff, not available in theory but inconsistently worn in practice?
- Are specific measures in place to prevent manual handling and needlestick injuries, not a general safety policy with no concrete protective measures?
- Are required staff vaccinations tracked and current, not assumed complete with no verification?
- Is staff wellbeing monitored, with support available after distressing events?
Documents
E-learning
No course linked yet.
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
- World Health Organization (2009). WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care. Geneva: WHO. Open source (E-001)
A process exists for the investigation and resolution of workplace issues raised by workforce members — including whistleblowing concerns about organisational wrongdoing — with protection from adverse treatment for those who raise them, not a grievance process that exists on paper with no follow-through or protection.
Why it matters. When staff raise a problem at work, such as unsafe rotas or bullying, and nothing happens, they stop raising it. A process that investigates and resolves the issue keeps problems visible and fixed.
What the surveyor checks
- Is there an accessible process for staff to raise workplace issues, including whistleblowing concerns?
- Is there documented evidence that raised issues lead to investigation and resolution?
- Are staff who raise concerns protected from adverse treatment, not merely told they are?
Documents
E-learning
No course linked yet.
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
The facility takes concrete steps to protect staff from violence and aggression — whether from patients, visitors, or other staff — ranging from verbal abuse and harassment through to physical assault, not workplace violence treated as an unavoidable, unaddressed feature of healthcare work.
Why it matters. Staff who are attacked need specific protections, not general statements. Tracking incidents shows whether the protections work.
What the surveyor checks
- Are specific measures in place to protect staff from violence and aggression, not a general policy with no concrete protective steps?
- Are incidents of violence or aggression toward staff tracked and reviewed, not treated as isolated, unrecorded events?
- Can staff describe a specific instance where a protective measure worked as intended?
Documents
E-learning
No course linked yet.
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
The facility has a systematic approach to gathering feedback from its workforce about their experience of working there, with analysis of trends and an implemented response — not feedback collected occasionally with no pattern of actual improvement resulting from it.
Why it matters. Staff know where the service is failing better than anyone. Asking them regularly, and acting on the answers, is how the workforce’s experience improves the service.
What the surveyor checks
- Is workforce feedback gathered on a systematic, recurring basis (satisfaction surveys, exit interviews, consultations)?
- Is collected feedback analysed for trends, not simply filed without examination?
- Can the facility show a recorded case where workforce feedback led to an implemented change?
Documents
E-learning
No course linked yet.
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
The facility monitors and analyses data on staff sick leave and the reasons people leave, using this data to inform organisational learning and changes in practice that support workforce wellbeing and retention — not attrition treated as an unexamined, unavoidable cost of doing business.
Why it matters. Sick leave and staff leaving are early warnings. When many people are off sick or leaving one ward, the cause is often in the workload or the management, and it can be found in the data.
What the surveyor checks
- Is staff sick leave data monitored and analysed, not simply recorded with no review?
- Are the reasons staff leave the organisation captured, not assumed or left uninvestigated?
- Can the facility show a recorded case where this data informed a change supporting staff wellbeing or retention?
Documents
E-learning
No course linked yet.
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
The organisation monitors and responds to patterns of equity across recruitment, work allocation, scheduling, and promotion — not an assumption that fair treatment exists simply because no formal complaint has been raised.
Why it matters. Recruitment, allocation of shifts and promotion can favour some groups without anyone meaning them to. Monitoring the patterns shows where equity is missing, so it can be fixed.
What the surveyor checks
- Is workforce data on recruitment, work allocation, scheduling, and promotion monitored for patterns of inequity?
- Where a pattern is identified, is there a defined response?
- Can the facility show a recorded example of this monitoring informing a change in practice?
Documents
E-learning
No course linked yet.
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
Working hours, rest breaks and rotas are set in writing so that staff can work safely. Hours are monitored, and excessive hours are reported and reduced.
Why it matters. Staff who work very long hours or without proper rest make more errors, and they are more likely to be injured. Writing down the hours, the breaks and the rotas, and checking them, keeps the workforce safe.
What the surveyor checks
- Are working hours and rest breaks set in writing, and is compliance monitored?
- Is excessive working time identified and reported to a named manager?
- Are staff able to take the rest they are due, and is this checked?
Documents
E-learning
No course linked yet.
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
Staff can report safety concerns, misconduct and wrongdoing through a defined route that bypasses their line manager if needed. They are protected from retaliation, and reports are answered.
Why it matters. A staff member who sees a serious danger, or a colleague doing wrong, may not report it if the report goes through the manager who is part of the problem. A route that bypasses the line manager, and protects the person who reports, makes the service safer.
What the surveyor checks
- Is there a written speaking-up route, including one that bypasses the line manager?
- Is every report answered to the person who raised it, with the outcome recorded?
- Is protection from retaliation written into policy and applied when it is tested?
Documents
E-learning
No course linked yet.
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
Staff who care for patients receive training in falls prevention. The training is recorded and refreshed at a defined interval.
Why it matters. Falls are among the most common harms to patients in care. Staff who are trained to prevent them, and whose training is refreshed, can spot the risk before the patient falls.
What the surveyor checks
- Do all staff who care for patients receive falls prevention training, with attendance recorded?
- Is the training refreshed at a defined interval?
- Is the training specific to the environment and patient groups the service serves?
Documents
E-learning
No course linked yet.
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
- World Health Organization (2007). WHO Global Report on Falls Prevention in Older Age. Geneva: WHO. Open source (E-008)
Back to ASF Health Standards v10 · Standards Map · E-learning by standard · References