What does GHA assess? The before–during–after journey of international patients

On 2–3 November 2026, Vinmec Da Nang hosted the assessment team of Global Healthcare Accreditation (GHA). Those two days sharpened something I already believed: medical travel is not simply “treatment somewhere else”. A successful operation is not enough to keep an international patient safe. Risk often sits in the gaps between stages.

International patients face different risks

Domestic patients have a family doctor, relatives nearby, and they understand the language and the system. International patients do not. They decide from a distance, based on information online; they may be taking medicines their doctors here do not know about; they worry about unexpected costs; and after discharge they fly home, where the doctor who continues their care may lack the full record. Every handover is a point where care can break.

How GHA differs from JCI

JCI assesses quality and safety across the whole hospital. GHA asks a narrower but deeper question: does the international patient programme protect the patient throughout the journey? The two frameworks complement each other. A hospital operating to JCI standards can still have specific gaps in remote intake, language, culture or follow-up after the patient returns home.

Three stages of the journey

GHA standards version 2.1 divide the patient journey into three stages, with 11 critical standards that must be met:

• Before arrival: website information must be accurate and accessible; health status and current medicines are reviewed before travel; patients understand their rights, responsibilities and costs before deciding.
• During care: transparent payment processes; culturally competent staff; a risk management plan; safe facilities and fire safety; supplies from reliable sources; complaints heard and used for improvement.
• After treatment: rehabilitation, careful preparation before leaving hospital, record handover and a follow-up plan once the patient is home.

How the assessors work

What I valued most was that the team did not stop at documents. They used tracers: following a real patient through each department to check whether what the procedures say actually happens. They interviewed patients directly, reviewed staff credentials and resuscitation certification, and examined the quality indicators the hospital monitors and how it uses data to improve.

The accreditation decision is not made on site. The GHA Central Office reviews the written report before deciding, which keeps the outcome objective.

What it means for Da Nang

Da Nang has real advantages as a medical travel destination: an international airport, tourism infrastructure, climate and competitive costs. But international patients do not choose a destination for the scenery. They choose where they believe they will be safe. As President of the Da Nang Medical Tourism Chapter, I believe standards such as GHA help the whole ecosystem — hospitals, travel providers and accommodation — speak a common language of quality.

Conclusion

Accreditation is a tool, not the destination.

The greatest value of an assessment is not the certificate but an objective outside view that puts the patient at the centre. The recommendations we received are now our to-do list, whatever the accreditation outcome.