National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers
We support NABH preparation with clinical records, policies, staff credentials and investigation evidence, helping your team review the record behind its practices.
Set by National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers
What this is
NABH is the National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers in India. It runs accreditation programmes for facilities. A facility is accredited after assessment; software cannot confer accreditation.
What is built
- Care retains nursing and laboratory records within the selected plan.
- Flow policies carry named preparation, review and approval signatures.
- The document hub keeps versions, supporting files and review dates.
- Staff records retain professional licence details and supporting credentials.
- Incident and complaint workflows retain findings and corrective actions.
- Clinical audit tools and asset records support practical internal review.
What your auditor or regulator sees
Your team can inspect the selected clinical records alongside policy approvals, staff information, investigation findings, audit results and asset documentation. This gives a reviewer evidence to discuss with the people responsible for the work. It does not establish that every NABH requirement is met or that the software itself holds a NABH credential.
How the record supports your review
Name the NABH programme and edition that applies to each service before judging any record. Start with the programme applicable to the facility and the current assessment scope. Hospital accreditation and digital health assessment are different contexts; this page addresses facility preparation using available records. It does not claim that NextHealth has been assessed under a separate HIS or EMR digital health certification programme.
Choose a patient care example and follow the supporting records across the selected products. Review the clinical documentation, the policy approval behind the process and the relevant staff credential evidence. Then inspect an audit or investigation to understand how the organisation records a concern and its response. The purpose is to make the evidence understandable, not to replace interviews or observation.
The records described here do not constitute a complete, edition-specific standards library. Your team needs to confirm the applicable requirements and judge whether the evidence demonstrates actual practice. Staff policy read acknowledgements are not recorded, and general Quality indicators is still being completed, so neither should be assumed from the accreditation context.
Illustrative example: one concern and its records
This example uses synthetic data.
A facility reviews a concern about delayed discharge summaries. The quality lead opens a synthetic discharge procedure in the Document hub with its approval signatures, a synthetic clinical audit that scored summary completion for one ward, and the incident record that raised the concern with its corrective action. The ward manager and the quality lead then compare the records with what staff describe. The records give them something specific to discuss; interviews and observation still decide whether practice matches.
Care and Flow scope is selected according to the facility’s services. Nursing, laboratory and operational modules are not all included in every plan. Bring your assessment priorities to a demonstration and agree the records your reviewers need, while the organisation retains responsibility for implementation and sign-off.
Official source: nabh.co
What we claim, precisely
The system holds the evidence; the facility's accountable person attests. Nothing here asserts that a facility is compliant.
Common questions
-
No NABH accreditation or software certification is claimed. This page describes evidence that can support a facility’s preparation, with assessment and organisational responsibilities remaining separate from the software purchase.
-
No. Facility accreditation preparation and HIS or EMR digital health certification are different contexts. This page does not claim a separate software assessment or certification.
-
No complete edition-specific mapping is confirmed. Your team should identify the applicable programme and requirements, then review the available records rather than assume every objective is preconfigured.
-
Not through a policy read-acknowledgement feature, which is unavailable. Flow records preparation, review and approval signatures, but those serve a different purpose and do not prove staff readership.
-
Ask which NABH programme and edition applies to each of your services, which Care and Flow modules your plan includes, which records your assessors expect to see, and who in your organisation signs off each one. The software holds records; it does not decide any of these questions.
Not answered here? Contact the team
NXH Flow