In healthcare organizations, the terms “quality,” “SKS,” “SAS,” and “TÜSKA” are sometimes used interchangeably. They do not, however, describe the same structure. The difference is not merely terminological: it directly affects which standard is used as the basis, who manages preparation, which assessment is targeted, and how senior management allocates resources.

The key distinction is this: Quality Standards in Health (SKS) is the Ministry of Health’s quality framework within Türkiye’s Health Quality System. Health Accreditation Standards (SAS) are the standard sets used by TÜSKA in its accreditation programmes. An organization’s work on SKS does not, on its own, mean it has been accredited by TÜSKA.

What does SKS aim for?

The Ministry of Health states that it developed the SKS in order to reveal the targeted quality level for healthcare organizations and organizations providing services in Turkey and to guide implementation. Türkiye Health Quality System. It covers service quality, patient and employee safety, measurement, evaluation and improvement approach.

SKS study. It includes activities such as adapting standards to the institution, self-assessment, monitoring indicators, managing risks and preparation for Ministry quality assessment processes. This structure is not a job of "preparing a file for the audit day". Daily service is organized according to the Ministry's quality framework.

What does SAS and TÜSKA accreditation mean?

TÜSKA carries out accreditation activities in health services and publishes sets of Health Accreditation Standards for different service areas. TÜSKA's current standards page includes sets for areas such as hospitals, oral and dental health services, ambulatory health services, laboratory and hemodialysis. The current set and program under which the institution will be evaluated must be confirmed with the official guidance of TÜSKA during the application period.

Accreditation is a process of independent evaluation and recognition against certain standards. Therefore, it is not just the control of existing applications. It requires a separate program logic such as application, preparation, evaluation, management of findings and maintenance of accreditation.

Why is it mixed up?

Both structures touch on common themes such as patient safety, governance, risk management, employee competency, clinical processes and continuous improvement. It is often coordinated by the same quality team within the same organization. This natural similarity can lead to the assumption that “if we do one, the other is okay.”

However, common themes do not mean that the criteria and evaluation mechanism are the same. Standard codes, evidence expectations, program rules, and current versions should be managed separately.

Do not install two parallel systems

Understanding the difference does not mean creating two separate bureaucracies. The best approach is to manage common processes within a single corporate quality system. The aim is to separate the standard-specific requirements with a compliance matrix.

For example, drug safety, infection control, incident reporting, employee competency and document control should be carried out in one real operation. SKS and SAS clauses can be mapped to different requirements of this process. Thus, no two procedures, two forms or two boards are created for the same activity.

Practical working model for management

  1. Clarify the goal. Does the institution only conduct SKS evaluation preparations, apply for TÜSKA accreditation, or manage both needs together?
  2. Verify current set. Don't start with an old PDF or checklist from another institution.
  3. Take a common process inventory. Collect common areas such as patient safety, risk, education, documents, indicators and clinical governance in a single system.
  4. Create a requirements matrix. For each process, map the SKS and relevant SAS items, the responsible owner, and the source of evidence.
  5. Test field application. The principle should not be to find the procedure, but to implement it correctly by the employee.
  6. Maintain separate reporting needs. Each program's application, evaluation and evidence format should be governed by its own current rule.

Practical takeaway

Establishing the distinction between SKS and SAS/TÜSKA correctly does not increase the work of the quality team. On the contrary, it reduces unnecessary repetitions. Common processes live in a single corporate system, with expectations of different standards managed in a traceable matrix.

The current pages of the Ministry of Health and TÜSKA should be re-checked on the date of publication and application. The success of the quality system is measured by being able to translate the standard into daily practice, before using abbreviations correctly.

Resources

Stratex TÜSKA Readiness Pathways