Hypercorrection
It can even influence a language: Fetus is the original Latin term, but it got "fixed" to foetus or fœtus both in how people wrote Latin, and also in languages that had a term derived from it so now foetus is sometimes found in English, Dutch and German and also fötus in German; all based on people "fixing" what wasn't broken.
In between personal hypercorrection and something introducing a new spelling that became common across four different languages, are myths like "the passive voice should be avoided", "don't start a sentence with a conjunction", "don't start a sentence with however", "don't split infinitives", "don't split any verb form", "don't end a sentence with a preposition", "don't use the genitive of an noun that represents a non-living thing", "don't use like as a conjunctive". Here not only has someone got a bizarre notion into their heads about what is correct, but the "rule" has ended up being actively taught.
Often it's combined with an incorrect understanding of its own terms, as in this notorious example:
source
Not only is this teacher enforcing an imaginary rule, but of the 10 cases marked as "P.V.", only three are in the passive voice. Of those 3, only one seems like it could be rewritten into something that didn't weaken it (and that one still wouldn't actually improve). One actual use of the passive voice isn't marked as such.
In theory, such a "rule" could become so popular, that it became a real rule just by dominating the thinking of those who spoke the language. Many though are actually impossible to follow consistently, or just too at odds with common literate use, to ever reach that point.
In that case,'no'. :)
If you must use a single word (and I don't see why two words is bad here), I would just use facility. In the context of a medical applicaion, it would be just as clear as medical facility.
Best Answer
I'm curious. Does your native tongue have distinct words for these? Mine is Hindi, which doesn't. Neither does any other language I know. (Except for Sanskrit, arguably. Just about anything can be sandhi-fied (joined) into one word in Sanskrit.)
I'd say
this week
andthis month
are used considerably less frequently than today or tonight, as this ngram shows, which might (I said might) explain why the need was not felt for dedicated words to express them.And I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all, languages don't have these words either. I'm trying to say that English isn't behaving strangely here.
Oh, and I might as well repeat what Marv said. There is no 'language authority'.