SWGMDI’s ACET Committee: 

Report of the Comparison of NAME and IAC&ME Accreditation Standards

Published 11/30/12  Page 1 

SWGMDI’s Accreditation, Certification, Education and Training Committee’s 

Report of the Comparison of the 

NAME and the IAC&ME Accreditation Standards 

Executive Summary

The National Academy of Science’s (NAS) “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States 

– A Path Forward” report references the need for accreditation, certification, education and 

training for forensic practitioners and facilities. The NAS report also emphasizes the need for all 

forensic facilities to be accredited. This report concentrates on comparing existing accreditation 

standards for forensic facilities of the National Association of Medical Examiner (NAME) and 

the International Association of Coroner and Medical Examiner (IAC&ME) existing 

accreditation standards. 
SWGMDI’s ACET Committee: 

Report of the Comparison of NAME and IAC&ME Accreditation Standards

Published 11/30/12  Page 2 

Introduction 

Accreditation establishes minimum standards for improving the quality of forensic/medicolegal 

investigation of death. For the purposes of this committee, accreditation applies to forensic death 

investigation systems/offices as entities and does not apply to individual practitioners. 

Accreditation of forensic laboratories was not addressed in this report. Individual facilities may 

be included within the context of a “medicolegal system” however, facilities are not accredited 

alone. Accreditation for a forensic system/office is a result of a thorough review of published 

office policies and procedures, observed office practices, credentials held by forensic personnel 

and quality assurance verifications provided by laboratory and ancillary disciplines (consultants) 

providing services to the accredited medicolegal system. Accreditation is established through 

initial on-site inspection followed by annual reporting requirements and fees. Continued 

accreditation requires on-site inspections once every five years. 

Methods

A review of published accreditation standards indicates that the NAME and the IAC&ME are the 

two organizations currently accrediting forensic facilities. A further review of NAME and 

IAC&ME as of October 1, 2012 existing accreditation requirements identifies general 

similarities and differences between the two sets of accreditation standards, general application 

requirements and their processes and fee structure. 

Background

Both NAME and the IAC&ME offer voluntary peer reviewed accreditation processes for 

medical examiner and coroner offices. The goal of accreditation is to improve medicolegal death 

investigation through evaluation of existing systems. Each process is based on a “checklist” of 

operational standards developed by committee within each association. Verification of office 

adherence to each applicable standard is performed by trained inspectors. Inspectors are 

members of the association granting the accreditation and typically work in or have worked in 

“accredited” offices. Each inspector conducts on-site evaluations that include the review of 

documentation submitted, observation of office practices and interviews with appropriate 

personnel. Full on-site inspections are required on a five-year cycle with annual reporting and 

committee reviews to ensure continued compliance. 

The office seeking accreditation begins the process by conducting an internal "self-assessment" 

using the checklist of standards set forth by the accrediting agency. The IAC&ME document 

includes 130 standards addressing four main service areas: 1) Administrative 2) Forensics 3) 

Investigative and 4) Facilities. The NAME accreditation checklist contains 349 items organized 

into eight main service areas: 1) General 2) Investigations 3) Morgue Operations 4) Histology 

5) Toxicology 6) Reports and Record Keeping 7) Personnel and Staffing and 8) Supportive 

Services and Consultants. The checklist guides both the office preparing for the onsite 

inspection and the inspector during the inspection. 
SWGMDI’s ACET Committee: 

Report of the Comparison of NAME and IAC&ME Accreditation Standards

Published 11/30/12  Page 3 

Beginning January 2012, the IAC&ME did require on-site inspections for jurisdictions seeking 

accreditation that have a population of more than 100,000 or if the jurisdiction operates an 

autopsy facility. The IAC&ME offers a "virtual audit" for offices/systems with less than 100,000 

populations or if the facility does not include morgue operations, although the office/system has 

an option to request an onsite inspection. On-site inspections are performed by two trained 

auditors. The virtual audit includes written and photographic materials to be submitted of the 

facility along with the completed paperwork for review in lieu of an onsite visit. 

NAME’s checklist applies universally to medical examiner and coroner offices, regardless of 

size. Some fee adjustments and accreditation options exist for regional/state systems that choose 

to accredit individual offices or all offices as part of the whole system (i.e., state systems with 

satellite offices). However, each facility that performs autopsies must be inspected regardless of 

geographic location. 

NAME inspectors are NAME members who are forensic pathologists that undergo specific 

training for accreditation review. Classroom training consisting of two hours is offered each year 

during the annual meeting. Inspectors must attend the meeting as well as shadow a certified 

inspector conducting an on-site inspection. Inspectors must be recertified every five years and 

are required to attend the classroom training. 

NAME has also established Forensic Autopsy Performance Standards which are referenced 

during accreditation inspections to determine compliance with checklist standards involving 

autopsy workload (i.e., three external examinations equal one full autopsy). While the two 

standards documents contain some similar content and evaluation criteria, they are considered 

separate documents. 

Both IAC&ME and NAME checklists recognize that medicolegal death investigation 

incorporates forensic ancillary services (i.e., toxicology, histology, radiology, etc.). While many 

offices do not house such services or laboratories, they are responsible for selecting service 

providers that meet or exceed each of the applicable standards, including accreditation and 

certification of equipment and personnel. Verification of all checklist items regardless of "who" 

performs the service is included in the inspection process. 

Both checklists include statements about certification for personnel. NAME states that forensic 

pathologists must be certified by the American Board of Pathology and the chief investigator or 

at least one principal investigator be certified by the American Board of Medicolegal Death 

Investigators (ABMDI). NAME goes on to state that the majority of medicolegal investigators 

who have worked in the office for over five years be certified by ABMDI. IAC&ME simply 

states that employees are required to maintain all certifications required by Federal, State, and 

Local Laws, or procedures established by the office. 

Fee Structure 

The fee structure is based on the office size and population of the jurisdiction, as well as onsite 

fees for the inspector who are trained by the association: 
SWGMDI’s ACET Committee: 

Report of the Comparison of NAME and IAC&ME Accreditation Standards

Published 11/30/12  Page 4 

 Initial Fee Annual Maint. Fee

Class I Population > 100,000 $1000 - $1500 $250 

Class II Population 100,001 – 500,000 $2500 $500 

Class III Population >500,001 $3500 $1000 

Inspector travel expenses, including transportation, per diem, lodging and associated incidentals 

are the responsibility of the agency seeking accreditation, regardless of audit results.1 

NAME charges a flat rate of $2,500 for inspection for accreditation for a five-year period. For 

offices receiving accreditation after January 1, 2010 there is an annual accreditation verification 

process which costs $1,000 and compares completed checklists from the previous year to 

determine any significant changes requiring immediate attention. If an office or system has 

allowed their accreditation to lapse and requires reaccredidation, the fee is $2,500.2 

Inspector travel expenses are included in the fee for accreditation, although NAME requires that 

new inspectors undergoing training participate in a ride-along program with a certified inspector 

at their own expense. 

Accreditation 

IAC&ME accreditation is granted if the jurisdiction is compliant with 100% of the 34 mandatory 

standards and 90% compliant of all standards. The mandatory standards are as follows: 1) 

Administrative -33 total standards, 13 mandatory, 2) Forensics – 43 total standards, 4 

mandatory, 3) Investigative – 31 total standards, 10 mandatory and 4) Facilities – 23 total 

standards, 7 mandatory. A compliance level of 70-89% allows the jurisdiction to be granted 

provisional accreditation with a six month grace period to achieve the 90% compliance level.1

Each NAME accreditation standard is denoted as either a Phase I or Phase II deficiency. Phase I 

standards are considered important, but not essential requirements; deficiencies do not directly 

and seriously affect the quality of work or significantly endanger the welfare of the public or 

personnel.2 Phase II standards are considered essential requirements and any deficiencies may 

seriously impact the work or adversely affect the health and safety of the public or agency itself.2

 

The NAME grants Full Accreditation to offices/systems with no more than 15 Phase I 

deficiencies and zero Phase II deficiencies. Full accreditation is granted for a five year period, 

with annual reporting and review requirements. For inspected offices with no more than 25 Phase 

I deficiencies and no more than five Phase II deficiencies a Provisional Accreditation may be 

awarded for a 12 month period. Provisional accreditation may be extended for four consecutive 

years as long as the office or system submits a written application annually requesting an 

extension and is determined to be making progress toward Full Accreditation.2

Both NAME office accreditations (full and provisional) require annual reporting to maintain 

accreditation. Fully accredited offices must participate in the annual accreditation verification 

process and submit data for committee review, while provisionally accredited offices must 
SWGMDI’s ACET Committee: 

Report of the Comparison of NAME and IAC&ME Accreditation Standards

Published 11/30/12  Page 5 

submit data describing progress toward full accreditation. Both annual report processes require a 

$1,000 fee. 

As of September 24, 2012, the IAC&ME lists 17 accredited offices on their website and the 

NAME lists 60.2,3 All IAC&ME accredited offices are coroner systems and medical examiner 

facilities. Fifty-five of the the NAME accredited offices are medical examiner systems and five 

are facilities. 

Recommendations

A gap analysis may be performed to compare specific standards in an effort to analyze areas of 

great difference. 

NAME has proposed 17 changes to their current Accreditation Standards which will be voted on 

at the October 2012 annual meeting. The proposed changes do not alter the overall context of 

the accreditation and in fact, offer more detailed language and requirements. In addition, the 

IAC&ME is currently undergoing a formal validation review process which is expected to be 

complete in the spring of 2012. 

After the NAME annual meeting and the IAC&ME validation review process is completed and 

published, an updated comparison of accreditation standards must be performed. 

Summary

A general comparison of both accreditation programs was performed, outlining the similarities 

and differences. Accreditation proves that a facility is meeting minimum standards within the 

industry, thus raising the quality of forensic services provided by a medical examiner or coroner 

jurisdiction. 

References

1. IAC&ME Website http://theiacme.com/accreditation. Accessed September 17, 2012. 

2. NAME Policies and Procedures, Section XIX. Inspection and Accreditation Policy 

https://netforum.avectra.com/temp/ClientImages/NAME/c9d195a4-7e42-4f3a-99dbd2c0f8d9cfd9.pdf. Accessed September 17, 2012. 

3. National Research Council. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path 

Forward. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, 

National Research Council. National Academies Press. Washington, DC. 2009. 

The SWGMDI ACET Committee members who participated in the preparation of this report include: 

Julie Howe, Committee Chair 

Steve Clark, Ph.D. 

Laura Grimes 

Amy Wyman 
SWGMDI’s ACET Committee: 

Report of the Comparison of NAME and IAC&ME Accreditation Standards

Published 11/30/12  Page 6 

This document was approved for final publication by the SWGMDI Board on November 30, 2012. 

At that time, the SWGMDI Board Members were: 

Barbara Butcher 

Steve Clark, PhD 

Laura Crandall 

Tim Davidson 

John Fudenberg 

Roberta Geiselhart 

Laura Grimes 

Randy Hanzlick, MD 

Marie Herrmann, MD 

Julie Howe 

Bruce Hyma, MD 

Hannah Kinney, MD, PhD 

Donald Jason, MD, JD 

David (Zeb) Johnson 

Danielle McLeod-Henning 

R. Gibson Parrish, MD 

Keith Pinckard, MD 

Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, MD 

Mary Ann Sens, MD 

Lindsey Thomas, MD 

Frederick Upchurch 

Amy Wyman 

Dawn Zulauf