The quality of medical services plays a crucial role in public health, directly affecting patient well-being, trust in healthcare institutions, and overall treatment outcomes. Despite advancements in medical technology and treatment methodologies, ensuring consistent, object- tive, and comprehensive evaluations of medical professionals remains a significant challenge. Existing quality assessment methods often focus on retrospective case reviews and financial management aspects, failing to provide real-time, data-driven insights into physician com- petence, continuous professional development, and patient satisfaction. This research proposes the Quality Medical System (QMS) as a comprehensive evaluation framework for medical professionals, integrating three key subsystems: Control and Expert Review (CER), Educational Portfolio (EP), and Patient Feedback (PF).
The objective of this study is to develop a systematic, multi-faceted approach to assessing healthcare quality, incorporating quantitative and qualitative data sources. The CER subsystem evaluates physician competency through independent expert case reviews, ensuring evidence-based, objective assessments of diagnostic accuracy, treatment effectiveness, and adherence to medical standards. The EP subsystem tracks educational progress, measuring participation in training programs, certification courses, and research activities, promoting continuous professional growth. Meanwhile, the PF subsystem collects and analyzes patient feedback, capturing insights into physician-patient communication, service efficiency, and overall patient satisfaction.
To validate the QMS model, an experimental study was conducted across multiple healthcare institutions, assessing its impact on physician performance, professional deve- lopment, and patient trust. Results demonstrate a 15% increase in professional competency scores, a 25% rise in physician engagement in educational programs, and a 20% improvement in patient satisfaction ratings. Furthermore, the misdiagnosis rate decreased by 10%, indicating that objective competency assessments lead to more accurate clinical decision-making.
One of the primary challenges in implementing QMS is the resource-intensive nature of data collection, processing, and system integration. Additionally, patient feedback may contain subjective biases, requiring advanced statistical techniques to ensure evaluation reliability. However, the modular design of QMS allows for customization, making it adaptable to the specific needs of different medical institutions. Future enhancements will explore machine learning applications for automating competency assessments, predictive analytics for optimizing training recommendations, and real-time patient feedback collection via mobile applications.
This study highlights the effectiveness of QMS as a holistic, scalable solution for enhancing healthcare service quality. The integration of competency-based assessments, continuous professsional development tracking, and patient-centered feedback mechanisms fosters a data- driven, transparent, and improvement-oriented approach to medical service management. The findings underscore the potential of QMS as a transformative tool in modernizing healthcare evaluation frameworks, ultimately contributing to higher standards in medical education, improved patient care, and more reliable clinical outcomes.
- Begicheva, S. V. (2019). IEEE 21st Conference on Business Informatics (CBI). doi: 10.1109/CBI.2019.10088
- Begicheva, S. V. (2020). IEEE 14th International Conference on Application of Information and Communication Technologies (AICT). doi: 10.1109/AICT50176.2020.9368653
- Bodin, O. N., Bezborodova, O. E., Mitroshin, A. N., Chuvykin, B. V., Martinov, D. V., & Edemsky, M. V. (2023). Systems and Technologies of the Digital HealthCare (STDH). doi: 10.1109/STDH59314.2023.10491005
- Cao, J., Zhang, J., Lin, X. G., & Sun, A. L. (2022). IEEE 2nd International Conference on Information Communication and Software Engineering (ICICSE). doi: 10.1109/ICICSE55337.2022.9828956
- Li, Z. (2024). IEEE 3rd International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Big Data and Algorithms (EEBDA). doi: 10.1109/EEBDA60612.2024.10485925
- Liu, A., Guo, X., Liu, T., Zhang, Y., Tsai, S.-B., & Zhu, Q. (2019). IEEE Access, 7. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2903684
- Mei, Y., & Zhang, J. (2021). International Conference on Public Management and Intelligent Society (PMIS). doi: 10.1109/PMIS52742.2021.00064
- Mikhailov, Y. I., Budrin, A. G., Budrina, E. V., Kovalchuk, S. V., Soldatova, A. V., & Lemeshkin, R. N. (2019). International Conference “Quality Management, Transport and Information Security, Information Technologies” (IT&QM&IS). doi: 10.1109/ITQMIS.2019.8928385
- Pan, W., Xie, J., Zhao, Y., Liu, B., & Hu, K. (2021). IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM). doi: 10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669614
- Peng, K. (2021). 11th International Conference on Information Technology in Medicine and Education (ITME). doi: 10.1109/ITME53901.2021.00133
- Sultanovs, E., Strebko, J., Romanovs, A., & Lektauers, A. (2020). 61st International Scientific Conference on Information Technology and Management Science of Riga Technical University (ITMS). doi: 10.1109/ITMS51158.2020.9259298
- Zeng, S., & Wu, M. (2019). IEEE International Conference on Computation, Communication and Engineering (ICCCE). doi: 10.1109/ICCCE48422.2019.9010766
- Zhang, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2021). International Conference on Public Management and Intelligent Society (PMIS). doi: 10.1109/PMIS52742.2021.00019