Keyword: Survey of Doctors
1 result found.
Original Article
Epidemiology and Health Data Insights, 2(5), 2026, ehdi065, https://doi.org/10.63946/ehdi/19920
ABSTRACT:
Introduction: Improving the quality and accessibility of medical care is a key priority for the healthcare system of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Standards for the organization of specialized medical care are important tools for unifying clinical approaches and optimizing patient routing. The purpose of this study is to assess the knowledge, practical application and barriers to the implementation of these standards of medical care organization among practicing healthcare professionals in five priority clinical profiles.
Methods: Using an anonymous online platform (Google Forms), a cross-sectional survey was conducted among doctors in 46 medical organizations in 13 regions of Kazakhstan. The study was conducted in five clinical profiles: cardiology and cardiac surgery, rheumatology, gastroenterology/hepatology, nephrology and traumatology and orthopedics. The questionnaires assessed the level of knowledge about standards, estimated the perceived importance of patient satisfaction and equipment compliance. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA v.18.
Results: A total of 323 out of 400 invited specialists participated in the survey (a response rate of 80.8%). In total, 267 of the 323 respondents (82.7%) reported that they use these standards in their daily work. Knowledge levels were assessed separately for each clinical profile, as the questionnaires varied in terms of the number and content of the questions. Overall, 300 out of 323 respondents (92.9%) indicated that patient satisfaction is one of the top priorities in their organization.
Conclusion: Most of the physicians surveyed reported that they follow the Standards on a daily basis; however, the survey results revealed variations in the knowledge level of the Standards specific to individual medical specialties. Because the questionnaires differed in content and scope, the data obtained do not allow for the ranking of clinical specialties based on their overall level of knowledge. These findings underscore the need for further research into how well physicians understand the relevant regulatory requirements, as well as the need for an objective assessment of the implementation of these standards. When interpreting the results, it should be noted that the sample was selected purposively, and several indicators were based on the respondents' own subjective assessments.
Methods: Using an anonymous online platform (Google Forms), a cross-sectional survey was conducted among doctors in 46 medical organizations in 13 regions of Kazakhstan. The study was conducted in five clinical profiles: cardiology and cardiac surgery, rheumatology, gastroenterology/hepatology, nephrology and traumatology and orthopedics. The questionnaires assessed the level of knowledge about standards, estimated the perceived importance of patient satisfaction and equipment compliance. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA v.18.
Results: A total of 323 out of 400 invited specialists participated in the survey (a response rate of 80.8%). In total, 267 of the 323 respondents (82.7%) reported that they use these standards in their daily work. Knowledge levels were assessed separately for each clinical profile, as the questionnaires varied in terms of the number and content of the questions. Overall, 300 out of 323 respondents (92.9%) indicated that patient satisfaction is one of the top priorities in their organization.
Conclusion: Most of the physicians surveyed reported that they follow the Standards on a daily basis; however, the survey results revealed variations in the knowledge level of the Standards specific to individual medical specialties. Because the questionnaires differed in content and scope, the data obtained do not allow for the ranking of clinical specialties based on their overall level of knowledge. These findings underscore the need for further research into how well physicians understand the relevant regulatory requirements, as well as the need for an objective assessment of the implementation of these standards. When interpreting the results, it should be noted that the sample was selected purposively, and several indicators were based on the respondents' own subjective assessments.
