AIHCM Accreditation Framework
The AIHCM Accreditation Framework
Published standards. Independent evaluation. Continuous quality improvement.
AIHCM Standards Version
Version 2026.1
Standards are reviewed every three years by AIHCM governance committees and subject matter experts.
- Effective Date
- January 2026
- Next Review
- January 2029
Supporting healthcare education through internationally recognized quality standards and evidence-based evaluation.
AIHCM publishes what it measures, how evidence is reviewed, how scoring works, and how decisions remain independent — so institutions, learners, and the public can trust the process.
Guiding Principles
The principles behind every evaluation
AIHCM Standards
Ten domains of educational quality
Each domain has a dedicated standards page covering definition, purpose, criteria, evidence, scoring, and best practices.
Educational Governance
Leadership, strategy, integrity, and accountable decision-making across the institution.
View standardFaculty Qualification
Qualified, developed, and continuously evaluated educators who meet professional standards.
View standardCurriculum
Coherent, evidence-based, and outcome-aligned curricula relevant to healthcare practice.
View standardAssessment
Valid, fair, and reliable assessment practices that measure intended competencies.
View standardLearning Outcomes
Clearly defined, measured, and achieved competencies for every program and pathway.
View standardQuality Improvement
Data-driven review cycles and ongoing enhancement of educational effectiveness.
View standardDigital Learning
Effective use of technology and online delivery that supports learner success.
View standardClinical Training
Safe, supervised, and standards-based clinical and practical training experiences.
View standardEthics
Ethical conduct, professional integrity, and responsible educational practice.
View standardCompliance
Alignment with applicable regulatory, professional, and institutional requirements.
View standardScoring Framework
Evaluation levels
Reviewers apply published evaluation levels so scoring remains consistent, transparent, and auditable.
- 01
Fully Meets Standard
Evidence demonstrates complete alignment with the standard and its criteria.
- 02
Substantially Meets Standard
Evidence demonstrates strong alignment with only minor gaps that do not undermine quality.
- 03
Partially Meets Standard
Evidence shows meaningful progress, but material gaps require corrective action.
- 04
Does Not Meet Standard
Evidence is insufficient or demonstrates significant non-alignment with the standard.
- 05
Not Applicable
The criterion does not apply to the applicant’s scope, delivery model, or pathway.
Evidence Examples
What evidence do applicants submit?
Evidence requirements vary by pathway and scope. Common examples include the following.
Evaluation Methodology
How evaluation works
A complete pathway from eligibility through public registry listing and continuous monitoring.
- 01
Eligibility Review
Confirm the applicant meets baseline requirements to enter the accreditation pathway.
- 02
Published Standards
Evaluation is conducted against clearly published domains, criteria, and scoring guidance.
- 03
Application
The institution submits a formal application with scope, organizational details, and pathway selection.
- 04
Evidence Review
Submitted documentation is examined for completeness, consistency, and relevance to each standard.
- 05
Peer Evaluation
Qualified peer reviewers assess evidence using consistent, criteria-based methods.
- 06
Committee Decision
An evaluation committee reviews findings and issues an evidence-based accreditation decision.
- 07
Accreditation Award
Approved applicants receive accreditation status aligned to the evaluated scope.
- 08
Public Registry
Accredited organizations are listed in the Official AIHCM Accreditation Registry.
- 09
Continuous Monitoring
Ongoing quality expectations, periodic review, and renewal sustain standards after award.
Governance & Independence
How decisions stay impartial
Accreditation decisions are made independently by qualified evaluation committees operating under published policies, conflict-of-interest requirements, and evidence-based review procedures.
Conflict of Interest Policy
AIHCM ensures accreditation decisions remain impartial through reviewer independence, disclosure requirements, and conflict-of-interest procedures.
Read governance detailsOur Peer Evaluators
Expertise behind every review
Peer evaluation draws on professionals with healthcare education, clinical, and quality assurance experience.
Why AIHCM Standards Matter
Value of AIHCM accreditation
For Institutions
- Demonstrate educational quality to learners, partners, and regulators
- Strengthen governance, curriculum, and continuous improvement systems
- Gain international recognition and registry visibility
For Students
- Graduate from programs assessed against recognized quality standards
- Receive secure, globally verifiable digital credentials
- Build trust with employers through authenticated certificates
For Employers
- Verify qualifications instantly without relying on paper documents
- Hire graduates from accredited, quality-assured programs
- Reduce credential fraud and verification friction
For Healthcare Systems
- Support a more competent and trustworthy healthcare workforce
- Promote consistent educational quality across providers
- Strengthen public confidence in healthcare education outcomes
Download AIHCM Standards
Published guidance for applicants and partners
Request or review standards documentation, scoring guidance, policies, and application materials.
Related Resources
Authority knowledge hub
Frequently Asked Questions
Standards and evaluation, explained
What standards does AIHCM use?+
AIHCM evaluates healthcare education against ten published quality domains covering governance, faculty, curriculum, assessment, learning outcomes, quality improvement, digital learning, clinical training, ethics, and compliance.
How are organizations evaluated?+
Organizations are evaluated through an evidence-based methodology: eligibility review, application, evidence review, peer evaluation, committee decision, accreditation award, public registry listing, and continuous monitoring.
Who conducts evaluations?+
Qualified peer evaluators — including healthcare executives, hospital leaders, quality experts, medical educators, academic faculty, and clinical specialists — assess evidence under published scoring guidance.
How long is accreditation valid?+
Accreditation is granted for a defined cycle, commonly up to three years, subject to continuous monitoring and ongoing compliance with AIHCM standards.
What evidence is required?+
Typical evidence includes faculty CVs, strategic plans, curriculum maps, learning outcomes, policies, assessment reports, student surveys, clinical agreements, quality reports, and annual reviews — mapped to each applicable standard.
How often are standards reviewed?+
Standards are reviewed every three years by AIHCM governance committees and subject matter experts.
Can organizations appeal a decision?+
Yes. Applicants may appeal accreditation decisions through a defined appeals process reviewed separately from the original decision pathway.
How are peer reviewers selected?+
Peer reviewers are selected for relevant healthcare education expertise, independence, and ability to apply published criteria consistently. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed and managed.