Standard pilote v0.9 · Pilier 1

Le soutien doit être réel avant qu’une personne en ait besoin.

Un soutien qualifié, joignable, compréhensible, volontaire, confidentiel et protégé des conséquences sur la performance.

Proposition de travail complète — pas encore un standard de certification approuvé.

Les exigences détaillées nécessitent une revue clinique, juridique, vie privée, accessibilité, expérience vécue, mesure et opérations. P1.2 est une évolution de taxonomie proposée.

Examiner la méthode

Traduction experte encore requise

La navigation et les résultats attendus sont traduits. Le texte normatif détaillé reste en anglais jusqu’à validation clinique et juridique de la traduction.

Mise à jour candidate · revue du Toolkit du CIO

Ce que le delta v0.3 proposé change ici

Cette couche de modification contrôlée complète la banque de rédaction v0.2. Elle renforce la littératie, les parcours, la planification, le retour sûr, les garanties du dépistage, l’entourage, l’inclusion et les transitions sans rendre obligatoire un outil du CIO.

Source primaire retrouvée et contrôléeRevue experte nominative encore requise

modifications proposées

nouvelles questions notées

questions révisées

exigences ajustées

Projet uniquement : aucun de ces éléments ne peut servir à la certification avant la traçabilité des revues clinique, expérience vécue, vie privée, accessibilité, mesure et gouvernance.

Ouvrir la source du CIO

Le texte source contrôlé est actuellement en anglais. La traduction normative française reste un flux d’approbation distinct.

Examiner les éléments contrôlés proposés

MM-IOC-01P1 · P1.3Proposed

Make recurring athlete mental-health education an explicit organisational responsibility.

Modification proposée

Extend P1.3 so communication is not limited to service details. Organisations should help athletes understand common warning signs, when further help may be useful, confidentiality and its limits, how to support another person, and where routine or urgent help is found. Education must remain non-diagnostic and proportionate.

Libellé de la question

Which statement best describes how the organisation provides recurring, practical mental-health education to athletes and checks whether it is understood?

Routage / applicabilité

Universal from Silver; Bronze may be satisfied by induction-level information already in P1.3-BR.

Impact preuves / audit

Add education materials, reach records, update history and protected comprehension sampling.

Revue requise

Clinical; lived experience; accessibility; translation.

Pages source

35, 37, 50-51

MM-IOC-02P1 · P1.4Proposed

Add a safe and supported return-to-participation process after a mental-health-related absence.

Modification proposée

Where an organisation controls return to training, competition or selection after a health-related absence, it should have a coordinated process that respects athlete choice, uses appropriate qualified input, shares only necessary functional information, allows temporary adjustments and prevents both premature return and unnecessary exclusion.

Libellé de la question

Which statement best describes how a return to training or competition is coordinated after a mental-health-related absence?

Routage / applicabilité

Route to organisations that control return-to-training, return-to-competition or participation decisions.

Impact preuves / audit

Add return-process document, anonymised plan sample, decision-role map and protected athlete corroboration at Diamond.

Revue requise

Clinical; legal; lived experience; performance operations.

Pages source

25, 67

MM-IOC-04P1 · P1.4 / P1.5Proposed

Create a clinical-screening safeguard module for organisations that choose to screen.

Modification proposée

Where screening exists, test voluntariness or other lawful authority, qualified selection and interpretation of the tool, clear pre-screen information, referral after concerning results, limits of rating scales, data minimisation and separation from coaching, selection and employment decisions.

Libellé de la question

Which statement best describes the safeguards around formal mental-health screening in the assessed scope?

Routage / applicabilité

Only if CTX-SERVICE-SCREENING-01 = Yes.

Impact preuves / audit

Tool rationale, consent wording, data flow, access list, follow-up protocol, referral sample and privacy review.

Revue requise

Clinical mandatory; privacy/legal; measurement; lived experience.

Pages source

37, 63

condition préalable

règles transversales

indicateurs de travail

exigences cumulatives

modules selon le risque

Objectif

Systèmes de soutien aux athlètes

Les organisations proposent des voies proportionnées vers un soutien qualifié, accessible, clairement expliqué et confidentiel, avec orientation volontaire, continuité et protection contre tout désavantage sportif.

Décision d’architecture encore ouverte

Le projet distingue un nouvel indicateur P1.2 sur l’accès pratique, équitable et rapide. Il reste proposé jusqu’à une décision explicite.

Condition préalable

AP-01 · Support-system scope and service map

Before MindsMelt can assess access, the organisation must show exactly who is covered, what each service does, where it operates, who pays, who can see information and what happens when the route cannot meet the need.

Preuves minimales

Scope statement
service map
provider and route register
exact inclusions/exclusions
ownership
costs and eligibility
privacy/data-flow map
update record.

Non suffisant

A list of logos or provider names
a national helpline presented as a formal partner
“all athletes covered” without defining teams, countries or exclusions.

Conséquence proposée : Major where scope or service meaning is materially unclear; critical where deliberate misrepresentation conceals unsafe or unqualified provision.

CR-01

Availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality

Every route must be tested against whether it exists, can be reached, respects the person and is delivered safely and competently. [S01–S04]

CR-02

Autonomy and voluntary participation

Routine check-ins, support and screening must not compel unnecessary disclosure or treatment. People must understand their choices and any lawful exceptions. [S02, S03, S12]

CR-03

Confidentiality and data minimisation

Collect, access and share only what is necessary for the stated purpose. Do not rely on apparently “free” consent where sporting power makes refusal difficult. [S07, S14, S15]

CR-04

Clinical independence and conflict control

Qualified professionals must be able to exercise independent judgement. Coaching, selection or commercial interests must not control clinical decisions. [S07, S11, S19]

CR-05

Accurate service descriptions

Performance, wellbeing, peer and clinical services must not be presented as interchangeable. Provider titles and partnerships must be truthful.

CR-06

Continuity and no avoidable abandonment

Delays, travel, transitions, provider absence and loss of organisational eligibility require a proportionate continuity or handoff plan.

CR-07

Controlled “not applicable”

An organisation may route out of a requirement only through verified scope facts. Lack of resources is not, by itself, proof that a safeguard is inapplicable.

P1.1

Conservé · remappé

Soutien professionnel qualifié et approprié

Lorsque j’ai besoin de soins formels de santé mentale, la voie mène à une personne correctement qualifiée, décrite avec exactitude et capable d’agir indépendamment dans mon intérêt.

Construit

Provider qualification, appropriateness, clinical governance and independence.

Obligation centrale

The organisation shall maintain and operate proportionate routes to appropriately qualified professional mental-health support, verify competence and jurisdiction, describe each service accurately and protect qualified clinical judgement from inappropriate performance influence.

Limite

P1.1 owns provider quality and clinical governance. P1.2 owns practical access; P1.4 owns referral and continuity; P1.5 owns confidentiality and performance separation; urgent response belongs to Pillar 4.

Bronze

P1.1-BR

Bronze — Verified route to appropriately qualified professional support

Operating support baseline

Universal foundation with clinical routingMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations; the route may be internal, contracted, public or community-based, but must be accurately described and verified.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall maintain at least one current and proportionate route to appropriately qualified mental-health care for people in scope who may require formal assessment or treatment. It shall verify provider identity, current professional registration or licence where applicable, scope of practice and jurisdiction; distinguish clinical care from performance psychology, coaching, peer support and general wellbeing activity; and define a qualified urgent alternative when the routine route is unavailable.

Intention : To ensure that “access to support” means a real route to someone competent and legally able to provide the service, not merely a name, app, campaign or unverified directory.

Preuves minimales acceptables

provider/route register
current registration or licence checks
scope-of-practice statement
service description visible to users
referral or contact pathway
urgent and backup route
contract or public-route verification where applicable

Preuves non suffisantes

a provider biography or logo without registration verification
a mental-skills coach presented as a therapist
a search-engine list
an employee-assistance number that has not been checked
a professional whose licence does not cover the jurisdiction or service offered

Méthodes d’audit

Document review · independent sample of provider registration · route walkthrough · service-description comparison · interview with the responsible owner · crossover check with MSF role boundaries and Pillar 4 urgent routes.

Validité

Provider status checked at engagement and at least at renewal or annually as a pilot default; registration current at decision date; route details rechecked after any failed contact or material change.

Écart proposé

Major if no viable qualified route exists or services are materially misdescribed. Critical where the organisation knowingly permits unqualified clinical practice, conceals provider status or deliberately directs a person to unsafe or unlawful care.

CAPA et décision

Major must be corrected before any badge. Closure requires a verified route and corrected communication, not only a promise to recruit later. Critical triggers immediate safety and scheme-integrity review.

Revue experte

Qualified clinical reviewer, professional-regulation/legal reviewer, operational reviewer and lived-experience reviewer.

Sources

[S05–S11, S13, S16]

Argent

P1.1-SI

Silver — Operational professional-support arrangements and clinical boundaries

Implementation records exist

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; clinical-governance depth increases where the organisation commissions, employs or controls providers.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall operate the qualified-support route through defined intake, referral acceptance, role boundaries, provider availability, supervision or specialist access, complaints, backup and handoff arrangements. Where it commissions or controls clinical care, the organisation shall assign a qualified clinical-governance function and protect professional judgement from coaching, selection, employment or commercial interference.

Intention : To demonstrate that verified qualifications are connected to a functioning service and that the organisation cannot override clinical judgement for performance reasons.

Preuves minimales acceptables

operating procedure
intake and referral records
provider availability and backup arrangements
clinical-governance terms where routed
supervision/consultation arrangements
complaints route
conflict and independence clauses
redacted sample of a successful and a failed referral where available

Preuves non suffisantes

a contract with no operating pathway
provider availability dependent on coach approval
no backup during leave
an internal clinician reporting clinically to selection staff
complaints handled only by the person complained about

Méthodes d’audit

Sample records · provider and owner interviews · test a failed-referral scenario · review reporting lines, contracts and conflicts · confirm that complaints and clinical escalation can bypass performance management.

Validité

Current operating cycle; at least 12 months of records where available; governance and provider arrangements current at decision date.

Écart proposé

Major for systemic intake, backup, supervision, conflict or complaints failure. Critical for deliberate interference with necessary care, unsafe unqualified treatment or retaliation linked to a clinical decision.

CAPA et décision

Major closed before Silver/Gold/Diamond. Evidence must demonstrate operation, such as a tested handoff or supervised pathway, not only revised contract wording.

Revue experte

Clinical governance, professional regulation, legal/conflict, audit and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S07, S09–S13, S19]

P1.1-GO

Gold — Quality, capacity and provider-system improvement

The service is monitored and improved

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold or Diamond; monitoring is proportionate to volume and avoids unnecessary clinical detail.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall monitor the quality and reliability of its professional-support system using protected system-level information, including provider currency, service capacity, rejected or delayed referrals, complaints, adverse events, cultural and accessibility barriers, continuity failures and conflicts. It shall record corrective action and verify whether changes improved the route.

Intention : To move beyond “we have a provider” and test whether the provider system remains qualified, reachable, appropriate and safe over time.

Preuves minimales acceptables

annual provider and route review
capacity and failed-access data
qualification rechecks
complaint/adverse-event summaries
accessibility and inclusion review
provider review records
corrective actions and effectiveness checks

Preuves non suffisantes

utilisation totals alone
renewing a contract without quality review
measuring success only by low complaint numbers
collecting clinical outcomes the organisation does not need
identical annual review with only the date changed

Méthodes d’audit

Review protected aggregate data · sample a provider review and corrective action · compare sites/populations · interview governance and clinical leads · verify that data minimisation and confidentiality are maintained.

Validité

At least annual review and after a serious complaint, provider change, repeated failed referral, new jurisdiction or material scope change.

Écart proposé

Major for persistent uncorrected quality/capacity failure, expired provider status, unmanaged conflict or misleading service claims. Critical for knowingly continuing unsafe clinical practice or concealing serious provider failure.

CAPA et décision

Major requires verified service correction, capacity or provider change and an effectiveness check before Gold/Diamond.

Revue experte

Clinical governance, audit, procurement/commissioning, privacy, accessibility and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S01–S04, S09–S13, S18, S19]

Diamond

P1.1-DI

Diamond — Independently verified professional-support quality and independence

Embedded and independently corroborated

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling proportionate to provider model, scale, jurisdictions and risk.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit that professional-support routes across the certified scope are appropriately qualified, correctly represented, clinically governed where applicable, available in practice and protected from inappropriate performance influence. The review shall sample provider status, agreements, failed referrals, complaints or adverse events, governance, conflicts and protected athlete experience. No open major or critical finding may remain.

Intention : To substantiate Diamond’s promise that people can reach competent care and that clinical judgement is not controlled by the organisation’s performance interests.

Preuves minimales acceptables

independent registration and agreement sample
clinical-governance review
protected athlete/service-user corroboration
failed-referral and complaint sample
cross-site or cross-jurisdiction testing
independent closure of major findings

Preuves non suffisantes

provider testimonials selected by management
auditor reliance on contracts alone
no sample outside the flagship team
raw therapy notes supplied unnecessarily
clinical lead who also has unchecked selection authority

Méthodes d’audit

Independent credential verification · protected provider and athlete interviews · sample handoffs, failures and governance · cross-scope comparison · test independence and alternative routes.

Validité

Normally previous 12–24 months, adjusted for operating history and volume; provider status and material arrangements current at certification decision.

Écart proposé

Major for unreliable qualification, access, governance or independence. Critical for falsification, deliberate obstruction, retaliation, unlicensed practice or serious unresolved danger.

CAPA et décision

All major and critical findings independently closed before certification; effectiveness must be demonstrated, not merely planned.

Revue experte

Independent clinical/safeguarding auditor, professional-regulation, privacy, lived-experience and assurance-method review.

Sources

[S07, S09–S13, S18, S19]

P1.2

Indicateur de travail approuvé

Accès rapide, équitable et pratique

Le service n’est pas seulement affiché : je peux réellement l’atteindre, comprendre ses conditions et recevoir une autre solution lorsque la voie prévue ne peut pas m’aider.

Construit

Availability, accessibility, acceptability, quality and practical access barriers.

Obligation centrale

The organisation shall make support practically accessible by defining and operating transparent eligibility, cost, waiting, location, language, disability, scheduling and backup arrangements, and shall identify and reduce material barriers across the assessed scope.

Limite

P1.2 owns routine practical access and capacity. P4.3 owns urgent and statutory escalation; P1.3 owns communication; P5 owns cultural willingness and stigma.

Bronze

P1.2-BR

Bronze — Transparent and usable access conditions

People know whether and how the route will work

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations and all populations in scope; route detail scales with service model.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall define and communicate who may use each support route, how to make contact without unnecessary permission, any cost or funding limits, expected response and waiting boundaries, location and opening hours, languages and formats, remote options, reasonable-adjustment process, urgent alternatives and what happens when the preferred route is unavailable.

Intention : To prevent a nominal service from being treated as accessible when hidden eligibility, cost, waiting, permission or practical barriers make it unusable.

Preuves minimales acceptables

athlete-facing access guide
eligibility and cost information
contact route
hours and waiting boundaries
language/accessibility information
alternative route
reasonable-adjustment process
current local or public-service information

Preuves non suffisantes

“contact the welfare lead” with no next step
support requiring coach permission
unknown costs
no explanation of waiting or emergency alternatives
a digital-only route that is unusable for part of the population

Méthodes d’audit

Unaided route walkthrough · review access information from the user perspective · test one routine and one unavailable-provider scenario · accessibility review · compare claims with actual service terms.

Validité

Access information reviewed at least every six months as a pilot default and immediately after service, cost, eligibility, provider or contact changes.

Écart proposé

Major where a material part of scope has no usable access route or where conditions are misleading. Minor for an isolated outdated detail when a safe and clear alternative remains available.

CAPA et décision

Major corrected before any badge; correction includes updated information and route testing. Minor corrected promptly with verification.

Revue experte

Operational access, accessibility, clinical, consumer-information and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S01, S02, S04, S05, S09, S17, S20]

Argent

P1.2-SI

Silver — Operational access, barrier support and backup

The organisation records whether people get through

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; data collection must be minimal and proportionate.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall operate and record the access pathway, including initial response, accepted and failed contacts, waiting or capacity delays, practical accommodations, backup routes and reasonable follow-up. It shall provide proportionate navigation or practical support where known barriers such as cost, transport, scheduling, language, disability, travel or digital access would otherwise prevent use.

Intention : To demonstrate that the access route works for real people and that predictable barriers do not end the process without an alternative.

Preuves minimales acceptables

access log with minimal data
response/waiting records
failed-contact and backup records
reasonable-adjustment examples
navigation or practical-support records
after-hours and travel alternatives
complaint or feedback route

Preuves non suffisantes

counting website clicks as access
closing the referral after one unanswered call
collecting diagnosis details to measure waiting
no record of failed or rejected contacts
informal exceptions available only to favoured athletes

Méthodes d’audit

Sample anonymised access journeys · test unavailable provider and accommodation scenarios · review data minimisation · interview route owners and users · compare different teams/sites.

Validité

Current operating cycle; normally previous 12 months or all journeys if fewer; current access and backup information.

Écart proposé

Major for systemic failed access, discriminatory barriers, no backup or misleading eligibility. Critical where access is deliberately blocked or delayed in a way that creates serious danger or retaliation.

CAPA et décision

Major closed before stage; closure requires demonstrated access or a tested alternative, not only a new policy.

Revue experte

Operational, accessibility/equality, clinical, privacy and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S01–S04, S09, S17, S20]

P1.2-GO

Gold — Equity, capacity and access improvement

Barriers are measured and corrected

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; analysis proportionate to population size and privacy risk.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall monitor availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality across the assessed scope; analyse waiting, failed access, affordability, language, disability, geography, schedule, identity and status-related barriers using protected data; compare materially different sites or groups; and implement and verify improvements without exposing individuals.

Intention : To reveal who the service does not reach and prevent overall utilisation averages from hiding unequal or unusable access.

Preuves minimales acceptables

defined access indicators
protected disaggregated analysis
capacity/waiting review
barrier and failed-referral trends
under-served group feedback
resource or service changes
re-test or effectiveness evidence

Preuves non suffisantes

overall utilisation only
small subgroup reporting that risks identification
assuming low use means low need
collecting sensitive demographic data without necessity and safeguards
no action after repeated access gaps

Méthodes d’audit

Review indicator definitions and privacy controls · compare groups/sites · sample one identified barrier through to corrective action and re-test · protected user feedback.

Validité

At least annual access/equity review and after repeated failures, major scope changes or new jurisdictions.

Écart proposé

Major for persistent material inequity, ignored capacity failure or unsupported claims of universal access. Critical for deliberate discriminatory exclusion or concealment of dangerous access failure.

CAPA et décision

Major closed with a proportionate access plan and evidence of implementation/effectiveness before Gold/Diamond.

Revue experte

Accessibility/equality, measurement, privacy, clinical, operational and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S01–S04, S09, S10, S13, S20]

Diamond

P1.2-DI

Diamond — Independently verified practical and equitable access

People across the certified scope can actually reach support

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; independent sampling across material sites, statuses, languages and access routes.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent route testing, protected participant evidence and review of access records that support can be reached in practice across the certified scope, including by people facing relevant language, disability, financial, geographic, schedule, status or power barriers. The auditor shall test backup and failed-access processes and confirm that no unresolved major access failure remains.

Intention : To ensure Diamond access claims survive independent testing rather than relying on service descriptions or selected success stories.

Preuves minimales acceptables

independent route-finding tests
protected interviews across relevant groups
sample access and failed-access journeys
reasonable-adjustment verification
cross-site comparison
verified access improvements

Preuves non suffisantes

management-selected testimonials
testing only headquarters or elite squads
scripted route demonstrations
no sampling of non-permanent or lower-status participants
no failed-access sample

Méthodes d’audit

Independent unaided contact tests where ethical · protected interviews · anonymised journey sampling · cross-scope and backup testing · review unresolved complaints and barriers.

Validité

Evidence normally covers the previous 12–24 months; access information and routes current at decision date.

Écart proposé

Major for inconsistent or inequitable access, unreliable backup or uncorrected exclusion. Critical for obstruction, retaliation, deliberate discrimination or grave danger caused by blocked access.

CAPA et décision

Independent closure and, where appropriate, repeat route test before certification.

Revue experte

Independent audit, accessibility/equality, privacy, clinical and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S01–S04, S09, S10, S18, S20]

P1.3

Conservé · remappé

Communication claire et orientation vers le soutien

Je sais quelle aide existe, ce qu’elle peut faire, comment l’utiliser, ce qui reste privé et où aller si la voie normale ne me convient pas.

Construit

Proactive communication, comprehension, navigation and information accessibility.

Obligation centrale

The organisation shall communicate current, accessible and truthful support information proactively and repeatedly, and shall test whether people across the assessed scope can understand and navigate routine, urgent, confidential and conflict-safe routes.

Limite

P1.3 owns support navigation. Pillar 2 owns staff education systems; P4.4 owns crisis/safeguarding readiness; P5.1 owns stigma and speaking-up culture.

Bronze

P1.3-BR

Bronze — Clear, proactive and accessible support information

People are told before they need help

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations and all people in scope; age, language, disability and digital-access adaptations required.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall communicate at induction and through continuously accessible channels what support is available, the difference between clinical and non-clinical roles, how to access each route, eligibility and costs, expected confidentiality and its limits, urgent alternatives, reasonable adjustments, and how to raise a concern about the service. Information shall be plain-language, current and available privately without requiring a manager.

Intention : To ensure that people do not need insider knowledge, confidence or a crisis to discover how the support system works.

Preuves minimales acceptables

induction materials
current website/app/venue information
private-access option
plain-language service guide
translated/alternative formats
distribution/update records
complaints and urgent-route information

Preuves non suffisantes

one old email
information only in a policy archive
technical provider terms without explanation
communication available only through coaches
materials that omit cost or confidentiality limits

Méthodes d’audit

User-perspective walkthrough · sample induction · accessibility and language review · compare materials with service map · unaided location test.

Validité

Current season/programme; reviewed after material route changes and at least every six months as pilot default.

Écart proposé

Major if people cannot reasonably find or understand the route or if information is materially misleading. Minor for an isolated format/distribution gap with safe alternatives.

CAPA et décision

Major corrected and user-tested before badge. Minor corrected promptly.

Revue experte

Lived-experience, accessibility, clinical, communications and privacy review.

Sources

[S01, S04, S05, S09, S12, S17, S22]

Argent

P1.3-SI

Silver — Repeated navigation, orientation and comprehension checks

Communication is an operating process

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; communication cadence adapts to season, turnover, travel and programme risk.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall operate a communication and navigation programme that repeats support information at relevant points, equips frontline roles to guide people without accessing private information, records updates and reach, and checks whether people understand where to go for routine, urgent, confidential and conflict-safe support. Identified comprehension or reach gaps shall be corrected.

Intention : To distinguish communication that was sent from communication that was received, understood and usable.

Preuves minimales acceptables

communication calendar
onboarding and refresher records
frontline navigation aids
reach/comprehension checks
updated materials
corrections after feedback
temporary/travel communication where relevant

Preuves non suffisantes

email delivery statistics only
asking managers whether athletes received it
communication once at contract signing
frontline staff who must know private details to signpost
no update after provider change

Méthodes d’audit

Sample communications across the operating year · interview frontline staff · protected participant route questions · compare reach by team/site/status · verify correction of a gap.

Validité

Current operating cycle; evidence of induction and at least one meaningful refresher or context-specific update.

Écart proposé

Major for systemic lack of communication, materially incorrect guidance or inaccessible navigation. Minor for an isolated missed refresher where routes remain well known and usable.

CAPA et décision

Major closed with repeated communication and a comprehension/route test, not only a resend.

Revue experte

Communications, accessibility, lived-experience, operational and privacy review.

Sources

[S05, S09, S10, S12, S17, S22]

P1.3-GO

Gold — Co-designed communication and navigation improvement

Reach and comprehension are monitored

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; monitoring must protect anonymity and include under-served groups.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall evaluate whether support information is understood and trusted across relevant groups, co-design or test materials with people in scope, analyse route confusion and under-reach, and record improvements. Communication shall be adapted where power, language, disability, culture, location or employment/selection status creates a barrier.

Intention : To prevent polished communication from serving only confident, centrally located or higher-status participants.

Preuves minimales acceptables

co-design/user-testing records
protected comprehension and trust findings
under-reach analysis
revised materials
route-finding results
leadership or service changes linked to feedback

Preuves non suffisantes

a general satisfaction survey
publishing identifiable subgroup comments
consulting only athlete representatives selected by management
redesign without checking comprehension
no response to persistent route confusion

Méthodes d’audit

Review co-design method and participant protection · sample route-finding data · compare groups · verify one improvement from finding to re-test.

Validité

At least annual evaluation and after major service, population or language changes.

Écart proposé

Major for repeated known communication failure, inaccessible material or misleading claims. Critical where communication is deliberately withheld or manipulated to prevent access or conceal harm.

CAPA et décision

Major closed with corrected materials and evidence of improved comprehension/reach.

Revue experte

Lived-experience, accessibility, measurement, communications, privacy and clinical review.

Sources

[S01, S04, S09, S10, S12, S20, S22]

Diamond

P1.3-DI

Diamond — Independently verified support navigation and comprehension

People can find and explain the route without coaching

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; independent sample across material roles, sites, languages and status groups.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent unaided route-finding, protected participant interviews and communication sampling that people across the certified scope can locate and understand routine, urgent, confidential and conflict-safe support routes, including key eligibility, cost and confidentiality boundaries. No unresolved major communication or navigation failure may remain.

Intention : To verify that the support system is understandable from the user’s perspective, not only complete from the organisation’s perspective.

Preuves minimales acceptables

independent route tests
protected interviews
cross-site/language sample
current communication archive
identified improvements and re-test
complaint/feedback sample

Preuves non suffisantes

management present during interviews
questions shared as scripts
testing only staff who designed the system
no lower-status or remote participants
website review alone

Méthodes d’audit

Independent unaided navigation · protected interviews · compare claims and route reality · sample communication at induction, routine operation and travel/transition points.

Validité

Current audit cycle with evidence of sustained communication during previous 12–24 months.

Écart proposé

Major for inconsistent comprehension, inaccessible routes or material misinformation. Critical for interview interference, retaliation, concealment or deliberate access obstruction.

CAPA et décision

Independent closure and repeat navigation testing before certification where needed.

Revue experte

Independent lived-experience/interview protocol, accessibility, communications, privacy and audit review.

Sources

[S05, S09, S10, S12, S17, S18, S22]

P1.4

Conservé · remappé

Suivis volontaires, orientation et continuité

Un suivi respecte mon choix, une orientation produit une transmission sûre et le soutien ne disparaît pas pendant les délais, les déplacements ou les transitions.

Construit

Autonomy in check-ins, referral activation, safe handoff, follow-up and continuity.

Obligation centrale

The organisation shall ensure check-ins are voluntary and non-diagnostic, operate a qualified referral and handoff pathway, support people during delay or failure and maintain proportionate continuity across foreseeable transitions without unnecessary surveillance.

Limite

P1.4 owns routine check-in/referral and continuity. Formal clinical assessment belongs to qualified providers; urgent escalation belongs to Pillar 4; broader transition support belongs to P5.2.

Bronze

P1.4-BR

Bronze — Voluntary, non-diagnostic check-ins and defined referral

Choice and boundaries are clear

Universal foundation with screening routingMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations that conduct wellbeing check-ins, screening, monitoring or staff-initiated referral; referral route required universally.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall define a referral pathway and ensure that any routine wellbeing check-in is voluntary, non-diagnostic and clear about its purpose, who will see information, what is recorded, the right not to answer and the circumstances requiring urgent or safeguarding action. Non-clinical personnel shall not use check-ins or scores to diagnose, compel treatment or decide that escalation is unnecessary.

Intention : To preserve the supportive value of check-ins without turning them into covert assessment, compulsory disclosure or false clinical reassurance.

Preuves minimales acceptables

check-in/referral procedure
participant information and opt-out wording
role boundaries
referral destinations
urgent escalation link
recording/data rules
formal-screening addendum where applicable

Preuves non suffisantes

mandatory “wellness scores” linked to selection
a coach-administered diagnostic questionnaire
no explanation of who sees answers
referral based only on a cut-off score
assuming refusal indicates a problem

Méthodes d’audit

Review check-in tools and communication · scenario interview · data-flow review · observe or reconstruct check-in process · verify urgent crossover with Pillar 4.

Validité

Procedure current and reviewed after tool, provider, data-use or legal changes; participant information current each operating cycle.

Écart proposé

Major for compelled or misleading check-ins, undefined referral or non-clinical diagnosis. Critical where coercion, false reassurance, punitive use or deliberate delay creates serious harm.

CAPA et décision

Major corrected before any badge; closure includes removal/correction of coercive data use and participant re-communication, not only policy revision.

Revue experte

Clinical, privacy, legal, lived-experience and measurement review mandatory.

Sources

[S02, S03, S08–S10, S12, S14, S15]

Argent

P1.4-SI

Silver — Operational referral, handoff and proportionate follow-up

The pathway moves beyond signposting

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; formal screening is routed to qualified clinical oversight.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall operate referral and handoff through trained roles, defined consent or other lawful authority, minimum-necessary information, confirmation of route acceptance where feasible, support during delay, failed-referral escalation and proportionate follow-up. Follow-up shall check whether the person reached a safe next step without demanding diagnosis or therapy details for performance staff.

Intention : To prevent referral from becoming “here is a number” followed by abandonment, surveillance or unnecessary clinical disclosure.

Preuves minimales acceptables

referral workflow
trained-role records
redacted referral/handoff sample
failed-referral route
consent/lawful-basis guidance
follow-up record
urgent escalation criteria
screening clinical oversight where routed

Preuves non suffisantes

closing after signposting
sending complete medical/performance files
asking coaches to confirm treatment details
no response when a provider rejects the referral
screening results reviewed only by performance staff

Méthodes d’audit

Sample successful, delayed and failed referral · privacy/minimisation check · role interviews · test unavailable provider · inspect formal-screening oversight if used.

Validité

Current procedure; sample previous 12 months or all referrals if fewer; tool validity and oversight current.

Écart proposé

Major for systemic failed handoff, abandonment, excessive sharing or unqualified screening. Critical where deliberate interference, unsafe delay or coercion creates grave harm.

CAPA et décision

Major closed before Silver/Gold/Diamond with a demonstrated referral or tested scenario and corrected data flow.

Revue experte

Clinical handoff, privacy, legal, operational and lived-experience review.

Sources

[S02, S04, S08–S10, S12, S13]

P1.4-GO

Gold — Referral quality, continuity and transition improvement

The organisation learns where people are lost

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; continuity contexts include travel, injury, relocation, deselection, contract end and retirement where relevant.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall monitor referral activation, failed handoffs, waiting, disengagement, continuity and transition barriers using protected system-level information; review the safety and validity of any screening or monitoring tool; and implement improvements. It shall maintain proportionate continuity plans when travel, injury, relocation, provider change, deselection, contract end or retirement would otherwise interrupt necessary support.

Intention : To reveal the gap between referral and care and to prevent organisational transitions from abruptly ending a person’s support.

Preuves minimales acceptables

referral and continuity indicators
failed-handoff analysis
transition/portable-information process
tool governance review
barrier feedback
corrective actions and re-test
provider handover arrangements

Preuves non suffisantes

counting referrals made rather than support reached
automatic transfer of clinical files without authority
continuity only for selected athletes
keeping people in organisational systems after eligibility ends without clear agreement
no review of false positives/negatives from screening

Méthodes d’audit

Review protected referral/continuity data · sample one transition and one failed handoff · inspect tool governance · verify improvements and data minimisation.

Validité

At least annual review and after repeated failure, provider/tool change or material transition programme change.

Écart proposé

Major for persistent failed referral, no continuity in a foreseeable material context, unsafe tool governance or repeated privacy failure. Critical for deliberate abandonment or coercive/selection use causing serious harm.

CAPA et décision

Major closed with an implemented continuity or referral improvement and effectiveness evidence before Gold/Diamond.

Revue experte

Clinical, measurement, privacy, transitions/lived-experience and operational review.

Sources

[S02, S04, S08–S10, S12, S18, S20]

Diamond

P1.4-DI

Diamond — Independently verified voluntary referral and continuity

Choice, handoff and continuity are corroborated

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; sampling includes relevant transitions, failed referrals and screening where used.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent audit and protected participant evidence that check-ins are voluntary and non-punitive, referrals produce safe and privacy-respecting handoffs, failed routes trigger alternatives, and continuity is maintained across material contexts in the certified scope. The auditor shall sample tools, records and transitions without seeking unnecessary clinical content. No open major or critical finding may remain.

Intention : To substantiate that the organisation’s care pathway respects autonomy and continues to function when a person’s circumstances or sporting status change.

Preuves minimales acceptables

independent check-in/tool review
protected participant corroboration
redacted successful and failed referral samples
transition/continuity sample
provider/tool governance verification
independent CAPA closure

Preuves non suffisantes

only staff accounts
participants interviewed by coaches
raw therapy or diagnostic records
no sample of people who declined a check-in or changed status
scripted success cases only

Méthodes d’audit

Independent record and tool sampling · protected interviews · transition and failed-referral walkthroughs · privacy and autonomy review · cross-scope consistency test.

Validité

Previous 12–24 months adjusted for volume; tools, pathways and provider arrangements current at decision date.

Écart proposé

Major for coercive, unreliable or discontinuous pathways. Critical for retaliation, evidence manipulation, deliberate interference with care or grave unresolved danger.

CAPA et décision

Independent closure required; repeat pathway test where necessary before certification.

Revue experte

Independent clinical, privacy, measurement, lived-experience and assurance review.

Sources

[S02–S04, S08–S10, S12, S18]

P1.5

Conservé · remappé

Confidentialité, autonomie et protection contre les désavantages de performance

Je peux demander de l’aide sans implication inutile de la performance, réutilisation cachée des données, coercition ni représailles.

Construit

Confidential access, informed boundaries, data separation, clinical independence and freedom from retaliation/performance disadvantage.

Obligation centrale

The organisation shall provide confidential and conflict-safe access, explain and enforce information boundaries, minimise and separate sensitive information, protect independent clinical judgement and prevent help-seeking information from being used against a person except through a lawful, necessary and transparent safety process.

Limite

P1.5 owns routine care confidentiality and selection separation. MSF controls provide the general privacy floor; P5.1 owns wider non-retaliation culture; P3 owns governance oversight.

Bronze

P1.5-BR

Bronze — Confidential access and transparent information boundaries

People can enter support without coach or selector permission

Universal foundationMandatory Foundation-linked requirementAll organisations; lawful emergency, safeguarding and fitness/participation exceptions must be explained accurately.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall provide a route to support that does not require unnecessary coaching, management or selection permission; explain before access what information is collected, who may see it, confidentiality limits and lawful exceptions; restrict routine access to authorised roles; and prohibit the use of mental-health or help-seeking information in selection, contract or performance decisions except through a lawful, necessary, transparent and athlete-known process involving appropriately qualified judgement.

Intention : To address the sport-specific fear that asking for help will expose private information or damage selection, funding, employment or status.

Preuves minimales acceptables

confidential access route
athlete-facing privacy/confidentiality explanation
role-based access list
selection-use rule
functional-information sharing process
alternative route for conflicts
provider independence statement

Preuves non suffisantes

“everything is confidential” with no exceptions
coach consent required to book
clinical records accessible to performance dashboards
diagnosis routinely shared with selectors
relying on consent that is tied to selection participation

Méthodes d’audit

User-perspective access walkthrough · privacy/data-flow review · role/access inspection · interview provider and performance owners separately · compare policy with system permissions.

Validité

Current privacy and access rules; reviewed after system, provider, purpose or legal changes and at least annually as pilot default.

Écart proposé

Major for no confidential route, undefined boundaries or inappropriate access. Critical for deliberate harmful disclosure, retaliation, covert selection use, evidence tampering or systematic exposure of protected information.

CAPA et décision

Major corrected before any badge; closure includes access correction, communication and any required incident response. Critical triggers safety, privacy and scheme action.

Revue experte

Privacy/legal, clinical ethics, lived-experience and operational security review mandatory.

Sources

[S02, S03, S07, S11–S15, S22]

Argent

P1.5-SI

Silver — Operational confidentiality, consent and conflict controls

Access rights and exceptions work in practice

Maturity progressionMandatory Silver requirementSilver or above; enhanced for in-house clinical services, minors, interpreters, digital platforms and dual-role practitioners.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall operate role-based access, separated clinical/support and performance records, lawful-basis and consent/exception procedures, interpreter confidentiality, conflict-safe alternative access, controlled functional-information sharing and auditable access where proportionate. Staff shall be instructed against informal disclosure, and people shall be able to ask questions, correct inaccuracies and raise privacy concerns.

Intention : To make confidentiality an operating control rather than a promise and to manage legitimate safety communication without exposing unnecessary clinical detail.

Preuves minimales acceptables

access matrix and system permissions
separated records
privacy notice and consent/exception records
functional restriction template
access logs where available
interpreter/contractor confidentiality terms
privacy concern route
staff briefing

Preuves non suffisantes

clinical notes in shared messaging apps
informal corridor updates
full diagnosis shared when only availability status is needed
dual-role provider with no conflict explanation
access rights that do not match policy

Méthodes d’audit

System/access sample · redacted information-sharing sample · staff and provider interviews · conflict scenario · check correction/complaint route and access logging.

Validité

Access rights current; formal review at least annually and after role/system changes; sample previous 12 months.

Écart proposé

Major for systemic access, separation, consent or conflict failure. Critical for deliberate disclosure, retaliation, harmful selection use or concealment of a serious breach.

CAPA et décision

Major closed before stage with technical and procedural correction plus effectiveness check. Privacy incidents handled under legal and scheme rules.

Revue experte

Privacy/security, clinical ethics, legal, lived-experience and audit review.

Sources

[S07, S11–S15, S22]

P1.5-GO

Gold — Trust, access-control and performance-separation improvement

The organisation tests whether confidentiality is believed and protected

Maturity progressionMandatory Gold requirementGold/Diamond; monitoring must not itself create a privacy risk.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall test and review confidentiality, access rights, conflicts and separation from performance decisions; monitor privacy concerns, near misses, inappropriate requests, selection-fear indicators and route avoidance using protected information; and implement and verify improvements. It shall periodically confirm that only minimum necessary functional information reaches decision-makers and that clinical professionals retain independent judgement.

Intention : To detect the informal leaks, power dynamics and fear that written confidentiality rules often miss.

Preuves minimales acceptables

access review
privacy concern/near-miss analysis
protected trust feedback
sample functional-information sharing
conflict review
selection/performance separation test
corrective action and re-test

Preuves non suffisantes

no complaints treated as proof of trust
surveying athletes through coaches
publishing small-group results
reviewing only formal systems while ignoring messaging/email
no action after inappropriate information requests

Méthodes d’audit

Review access and sharing samples · protected participant feedback · compare policy, system and actual practice · sample one concern or near miss through CAPA · interview clinical and selection leadership separately.

Validité

At least annual review and after a privacy incident, role conflict, system change or substantiated retaliation concern.

Écart proposé

Major for repeated uncorrected leakage, conflict or selection-separation failure. Critical for retaliation, deliberate covert use, evidence manipulation or serious harmful disclosure.

CAPA et décision

Major closed with corrected permissions/process and demonstrated trust/control improvement before Gold/Diamond.

Revue experte

Privacy/security, clinical independence, governance, lived-experience and audit review.

Sources

[S07, S11–S15, S19, S22]

Diamond

P1.5-DI

Diamond — Independently corroborated confidentiality, autonomy and clinical independence

People trust the route and evidence supports that trust

Embedded and verifiedMandatory Diamond requirementAll Diamond applicants; independent sample includes relevant clinical, performance, selection, HR and contracted roles.

Texte normatif de travail — anglais

The organisation shall demonstrate through independent privacy/conflict audit, protected participant evidence and sampling of access and information-sharing controls that people can seek support without inappropriate performance involvement, coercion, retaliation or covert reuse of information. Qualified clinical decisions shall be protected from non-clinical override, and no unresolved major or critical confidentiality or autonomy finding may remain.

Intention : To substantiate Diamond’s trust promise in the area where sport’s power imbalance creates the greatest fear of help-seeking consequences.

Preuves minimales acceptables

independent access/conflict audit
protected athlete and staff interviews
sample sharing and functional restrictions
provider independence evidence
privacy incident/CAPA sample
cross-site/system consistency review

Preuves non suffisantes

organisation-selected testimonials
management present during interviews
audit limited to written privacy notices
no inspection of actual access rights
raw clinical files supplied to prove confidentiality

Méthodes d’audit

Independent system and role-access testing · protected interviews · sample conflicts, requests and functional information · cross-check clinical authority and selection separation · verify CAPA.

Validité

Previous 12–24 months plus current permissions and arrangements at certification decision.

Écart proposé

Major for unreliable confidentiality, autonomy or independence. Critical for retaliation, deliberate harmful disclosure, covert selection use, obstruction or falsification.

CAPA et décision

All major/critical findings independently closed before certification; serious trust failure may require a sustained implementation period and repeat corroboration.

Revue experte

Independent privacy/security, clinical ethics, legal, lived-experience and assurance review.

Sources

[S03, S07, S11–S15, S19, S22]

Preuves et assurance

Une politique est un point de départ. L’audit teste le parcours.

Scope and service design

Service map, provider register, role descriptions, access conditions, privacy/data-flow map.

Design does not prove use.

Professional verification

Registration/licence checks, scope, jurisdiction, supervision and governance.

A certificate does not prove availability or independence.

Communication

Induction, route guides, accessible formats, updates and user tests.

Sending does not prove comprehension.

Implementation records

Access, referral, failed handoff, accommodation, continuity and complaint records.

Use minimum necessary data; absence of cases is not automatically proof of quality.

System-level monitoring

Waiting, barriers, access gaps, provider review, privacy concerns and CAPA.

Avoid identifying small groups or collecting diagnoses unnecessarily.

Protected corroboration

Confidential athlete/staff interviews and unaided route tests.

Organisation-selected testimonials are not independent corroboration.

External verification

Registration checks, public routes, contracts, service confirmations and system permissions.

Marketing claims and untested partner logos are insufficient.

Document and system review

Whether routes, roles, data flows and eligibility are defined and technically controlled.

Credential verification

Whether claimed providers and professional titles are current and appropriate.

Unaided route test

Whether a person can find and activate the route without coaching.

Journey sampling

Whether routine, delayed, failed and transition referrals are handled as described.

Protected interviews

Whether people understand, trust and can use the system without feared disadvantage.

Cross-scope sampling

Whether the flagship team and less visible teams/sites receive comparable minimum protection.

Conflict test

Whether a concern or care decision can bypass the coach, selector, executive or provider implicated.

CAPA effectiveness

Whether correction changed access, confidentiality or continuity in practice.

Validité des preuves

La preuve expire lorsque le parcours change.

Provider registration/licence

At engagement and renewal; normally annual; current at decision.

Déclencheur : Complaint, sanction, scope/jurisdiction change or provider role change.

Service/access information

At least six-monthly.

Déclencheur : Provider, contact, cost, eligibility, hours, language or route change; failed contact.

Privacy/access controls

At least annually.

Déclencheur : System, role, provider, purpose, legal or incident change.

Communication

Current season/programme and onboarding.

Déclencheur : Service change, new population/site or material comprehension gap.

Implementation samples

Normally previous 12 months.

Déclencheur : Use all available records for new/low-volume systems.

Gold/Diamond trends

Normally 12–24 months.

Déclencheur : Adjust for organisation history and volume; do not fabricate volume.

Screening/tool review

Before use and after material evidence/licence/version changes.

Déclencheur : Incident, false-reassurance concern, data-use change or new population.

Classification des écarts

Les conséquences suivent le risque réel.

Observation

Requirement met; improvement would strengthen the system.

Exemple : Clear route exists but user-testing could be broader.

Minor

Isolated, limited failure without material systemic access or confidentiality risk.

Exemple : One outdated format while current alternatives remain usable; isolated overdue review.

Major

Systemic or material failure that undermines the stage claim or blocks safe access.

Exemple : No qualified route; inaccessible service; compulsory check-in; no confidential route; repeated failed handoff.

Critical

Current serious danger, deliberate concealment, retaliation, falsification, harmful disclosure or knowingly unsafe/unqualified practice.

Exemple : Covert selection use of therapy data; retaliating after help-seeking; knowingly allowing unlicensed treatment; deliberate interference with urgent care.

Routage contrôlé

Une fonction de sécurité, des preuves proportionnées au contexte.

RA-01

Minors and young athletes

Age-appropriate information; consent and assent; guardian involvement and limits; confidential access where lawful; safeguarding crossover; transition to adult services; school/academy coordination; no assumption that parents may see all information.

RA-02

Small and volunteer-led organisations

No requirement to employ a clinician solely because of size; verified external/public routes; clear limitations; practical navigation; conflict-safe alternative beyond the main coach; no unsupported “partnership” or availability claims.

RA-03

In-house or commissioned clinical services

Named qualified clinical governance; professional independence; supervision; adverse-event and complaint process; safe records; continuity; conflicts; no routine clinical reporting to performance staff.

RA-04

Performance psychology and dual-role practitioners

Clear distinction between performance and clinical services; role-change process; informed choice; separate records where required; conflict and referral rules; no ambiguous “psychologist” claims where title/scope differs.

RA-05

Travel, remote and cross-border care

Verify provider authority and indemnity by jurisdiction; know the person’s location during remote care; local emergency route; platform privacy; language; medication and continuity plan; handoff before travel or relocation.

RA-06

Residential, boarding and academy settings

Private out-of-hours access; separation from house, coaching and selection authority; youth/guardian rules; support when away from family; safe spaces for remote consultations; continuity during holidays and release.

RA-07

Federations, franchises, member bodies and multiple sites

Exact certified scope; central minimums; local service maps and providers; delegation controls; escalation where local route fails; cross-site access analysis; no claim that unaudited members are covered.

RA-08

Language, disability, culture and interpreters

Accessible formats and reasonable adjustments; qualified/confidential interpreters; culturally appropriate choices; private communication; no family or teammate interpreter by default where confidentiality or accuracy could be compromised.

RA-09

Screening, monitoring and digital wellbeing tools

Clear purpose; validated tool for population and use; qualified oversight; voluntariness and lawful basis; false-positive/negative response; crisis plan; data minimisation; no automated diagnosis or selection use; vendor and algorithm governance.

RA-10

Injury, deselection, contract end, retirement and other transitions

Advance explanation of eligibility end; proportionate continuation or handoff; portable information controlled by the person; safe medication/clinical continuity; no abrupt withdrawal as punishment; clear financial and provider boundaries.

Modèles organisationnels proportionnés

Small community club

A verified external/public route, clear and private navigation, voluntary referral, safe data handling and a conflict-safe alternative may be sufficient. The club must not claim guaranteed clinical access it does not provide.

Professional team or academy

Likely needs commissioned or embedded routes, defined capacity, clinical independence, rapid referral, travel/residential coverage, confidential entry and strong separation from selection.

National federation

Needs exact scope, central standards, local-country service maps, delegation controls, cross-squad consistency, provider governance and monitoring of unequal access.

International federation / multi-country body

Needs jurisdiction routing, travel/event provision, provider verification by country, language/accessibility choices and transparent limits where member organisations are outside scope.

Event organiser

Focuses on temporary access, clear signposting, qualified event provision, handoff to home systems, confidentiality in accreditation/medical structures and urgent crossover with Pillar 4.

Organisation serving staff and volunteers

Must state whether staff/volunteers receive the same, separate or public routes, and cannot imply coverage that excludes them without saying so.

Plan du questionnaire

Le formulaire candidat n’est pas l’audit.

Translate requirements into routed measurement instruments; do not turn every control, evidence request and audit test into an applicant yes/no question.

Fourchette : Approximately 32–42 Pillar 1 applicant-bank items, with a typical routed sitting of roughly 22–30. This is an authoring hypothesis, not a quota or a validated scale.

Scope and service mapping

4–6 unscored selectors

Establishes covered populations, provider model, jurisdictions, costs, digital tools, minors, travel and transition contexts.

Cross-cutting rights and safeguards

6–8 applicant prompts

Tests voluntary participation, confidentiality, clinical independence, accurate service descriptions, continuity and controlled applicability.

Indicator maturity

15–20 focused prompts

Tests provider quality, practical access, navigation, referral continuity and performance separation without duplicating the same construct.

Routed risk modules

7–10 conditional prompts

Activates only for minors, commissioned care, digital tools, travel, residential settings, multiple sites, transitions and other relevant contexts.

01 · Applicant questions linked to one retained requirement and one primary construct.

02 · Evidence requests stating what may demonstrate practice and what is not sufficient.

03 · Auditor prompts, unaided route tests and sampling instructions kept separate from answer keys.

04 · Protected athlete, staff and provider corroboration with consent, independence, anti-retaliation and minimum-data safeguards.

Revues requises

Clinical and professional-regulation review

Provider qualification, scope of practice, role boundaries, referral, screening, supervision and clinical independence.

Privacy, data-protection and security review

Lawful basis, consent under power imbalance, access controls, data minimisation, retention, digital tools and functional-information sharing.

Accessibility and equality review

Language, disability, cost, geography, schedule, status, reasonable adjustments and equitable route testing.

Safeguarding, minors and legal review

Confidential access, guardian involvement, assent, reporting crossover, jurisdictional duties and retaliation protection.

Lived-experience and operational review

Findability, trust, feasibility, transitions, protected corroboration and whether routes work outside flagship teams.

Measurement and assurance review

Five-indicator distinctness, maturity progression, validity periods, finding consistency, sampling and question-bank coverage.

Décisions ouvertes

01
Confirm the five-indicator model and whether “timely, equitable and practical access” should remain a separate indicator.
02
Define the minimum qualified route for organisations relying entirely on public/community services.
03
Decide whether MindsMelt should set any universal response or waiting-time boundary, or require each organisation to publish and justify its own.
04
Define what financial support or coverage, if any, is expected by stage and organisation type.
05
Approve professional-category and registration addenda for France, the UK and founding-cohort jurisdictions.
06
Approve the boundary between clinical mental health, sport psychology, performance psychology, counselling, psychotherapy, peer and player-care roles.
07
Approve check-in and formal-screening rules, including validated tools, consent, data use and clinical oversight.
08
Approve the precise rule for functional health information that may be shared for safety/participation decisions.
09
Define minors’ confidential access, guardian involvement and assent by jurisdiction.
10
Set evidence-validity and refresh periods after operational testing.
11
Define protected interview sampling and retention rules for Diamond.
12
Decide how staff, volunteers and entourage are included in scope and public claims.
13
Define continuity expectations when an athlete is deselected, released, retires or leaves the organisation.
14
Confirm finding severities and whether any limited minor findings may remain open at pathway verification.
15
Define how outsourced digital and teletherapy vendors are reviewed and represented publicly.

Liste de préparation

L’organisation peut-elle prouver que le parcours fonctionne ?

21 références soutiennent ce modèle de travail. Le registre conserve l’écart de numérotation du projet afin qu’il soit résolu lors de la rédaction contrôlée.

We can state exactly who and what is included in the assessed scope.
We can distinguish clinical care, performance psychology, wellbeing/player-care, peer support and crisis routes.
Every claimed professional route has been verified for qualification, scope and jurisdiction.
People can access support without unnecessary coach, manager or selector permission.
Eligibility, cost, waiting, language, disability, hours, location and backup routes are clear.
Support information is available privately, proactively and in accessible formats.
Routine check-ins are voluntary, non-diagnostic and clear about information use.
Referrals include safe handoff, failed-route escalation and proportionate follow-up.
We have plans for travel, injury, relocation, deselection, contract end and retirement where relevant.
Clinical/support information is separated from performance and selection systems.
Any necessary functional information sharing is lawful, minimal, transparent and clinically justified.
We can demonstrate provider independence and manage dual-role conflicts.
We monitor access barriers and failed referrals without collecting unnecessary clinical data.
We can show how communication, access, provider or confidentiality failures produced improvement.
We can support independent route testing and protected athlete/staff interviews without interference.
We have no unresolved major or critical Pillar 1 finding for the stage claimed.

Le pilier 1 est désormais structurellement complet.

P1.2 est approuvé dans l’architecture de travail et les vingt exigences sont reliées au framework v1.2. Viennent ensuite la revue experte, la rédaction contrôlée, la traduction et le pilote.

Aider à revoir le modèle Toutes les exigences