THE DEGREE OF OBJECTIVITY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE QUALITY OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

Abstract

In order to create a system that ensures the availability of medical care and increases its effectiveness, objective indicators of the activities of medical organizations (MO) and their effectiveness are monitored based on clearly recorded statistical data. Recently, the monitoring system has included a subjective component of the quality of medical care assessment (QMC) - patient satisfaction. The article is devoted to the analysis of QMC criteria and their objectivity. We used indicators from official statistical reports of MO and ratings calculated by the Health Committee of the Volgograd region as “objective” criteria, “subjective” - the results of sociological research conducted among patients and doctors, as well as data from an Internet survey of patients. According to doctors, at present the main criterion of the QMC is the absence of officially registered complaints about the work of medical personnel and the patient’s “satisfaction” with communication with the doctor, which is practically not related to the objective results of his professional activity. The rating indicators calculated by the Health Committee of the Volgograd region based on objective performance indicators absolutely do not coincide with the subjective assessments of users of the Internet resource. Our survey of patients showed that more than half of them are quite satisfied with the quality of medical care, but only 1.7 % of respondents in this group left a positive review on their official websites, on the website of health authorities, independent sites that evaluate the work of medical personnel, or issued written thanks. Patients who had a negative experience of seeking medical help filed complaints about the quality of work of MO 10 times more often. It is proposed to use statistically reliable data that characterize the work of outpatient medical organizations, and the placement of this information on the official websites of MO, as an alternative to subjective assessments recorded in anonymous reviews of their work.