ArticleFuture science OA2026
Comparative analysis of JCI and nationally accredited medical organizations with day surgical hospital.
Article in Future science OA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Joint Commission International (JCI) Accreditation on Patient Satisfaction with Outpatient Departments: Comparative Cross-Sectional Study in Astana, Kazakhstan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Patient-Reported Experience in Day Surgery Under International JCI and National Accreditation in Kazakhstan.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Scoring architecture and transparency in healthcare accreditation: A scoping review of measurement design and signalling effects.SAGE open medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis study aimed to assess healthcare professionals' attitudes toward accreditation and compare perceptions between staff working in Joint Commission International (JCI)-accredited and nationally accredited medical institutions in Astana, Kazakhstan.
methodsA cross-sectional survey conducted among health professionals at a JCI-accredited hospital and two nationally accredited city polyclinics. The questionnaire comprised 38 items assessing employee satisfaction, teamwork cohesion, and perceived service quality.
resultsA total of 191 healthcare workers participated in the study with a response rate of more than 95%. Overall, 54.4% of respondents reported positive attitudes toward JCI accreditation, and 4.1% expressed very positive views. Perceptions of JCI's impact on patient safety were more favorable, with 63.3% rating it positively. Respondents with more than five years of work experience expressed satisfaction that JCI accreditation enhanced patient safety. In addition, participants with postgraduate education (β = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.53-0.65;
conclusionHealthcare professionals perceive JCI accreditation as a positive driver of patient safety, teamwork, and institutional quality culture. Implementing JCI measures may improve patient outcomes, strengthen staff engagement, and facilitate alignment with international standards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.