ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2026
Comparative Evaluation of Patient-Reported Experience in Day Surgery Under International JCI and National Accreditation in Kazakhstan.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Healthcare quality management requires robust, evidence-based evaluation of organizational frameworks. Building on prior findings regarding healthcare professionals' perspectives, this study aimed to evaluate quality management frameworks by examining three-year trends (2023-2025) in patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) across Joint Commission International JCI accredited and nationally accredited institutions within Kazakhstan's day surgery sector. Methods: A repeated cross-sectional, comparative study was conducted among 600 patients in Astana (n=100 per cohort per year). A validated 19-item questionnaire assessed clinical trust, digital maturity, and financial transparency. Statistical analysis employed Pearson's Chi-square tests for gap analysis, Binary Logistic Regression to determine independent predictors of institutional loyalty (Odds Ratios), and Multivariate Cluster Analysis (PCA-style) to map quality zones. Results: Over the three years, a trend of narrowing quality gaps was identified. JCI-accredited institutions were associated with higher ratings in perceived physician competence and digital maturity (56.0% online booking). High physician competence emerged as the primary predictor of loyalty (OR = 4.12; 95% CI: 2.80-6.10, p<0.001), indicating that patients perceiving high competence were four times more likely to recommend the facility. In nationally accredited polyclinics, loyalty ratings increased from 51.0% in 2023 to 74.0% in 2025 (p<0.001). However, in high-tier centers, a significant association was found between high out-of-pocket diagnostic costs (90.0%) and negative perceptions of financial transparency (45.0% in 2025). Conclusion: JCI accreditation is associated with clinical and digital excellence, while national standards correlate with improvements in the service baseline of primary care. The study suggests that sustainable modernization requires management frameworks that balance clinical protocols with infrastructure scalability and transparent financial counseling to maintain institutional integrity.
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.