Quality of medical services as a guarantee of the right to health care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal regulation of the quality of medical care: in the public-legal sphere as a guarantee of ensuring the constitutional right to health care and from the point of view of the private-legal understanding of the proper quality of the service provided to meet public needs. The author states that the recognition of human life and health as the highest social value makes the choice in favor of human-centrism and patient-orientation in the process of providing medical care absolutely unalternative. This also applies to the reform of the health care system. However, the existing shortcomings and gaps in legal regulation do not allow us to convincingly assess the quality of medical services at the current stage as high or at least sufficient. The criteria for the quality of medical services are summarized, namely: effectiveness (evidencebased); accessibility (both territorially and in terms of the availability of the necessary competent medical personnel, equipment, medicines); patient-orientation (compliance, the Calgary-Cambridge model of medical consultation); safety (proven profile of effectiveness and safety of all prescriptions). It is emphasized that there are some problems in ensuring the quality of medical services, especially in terms of safety and evidence. A set of measures is proposed to reform the health care system, in particular, the introduction of such indicators of the quality of medical care as the assessment of the rational use of antibiotics and the fight against antibiotic resistance and the assessment of the balanced appointment of invasive treatment methods in the presence of alternative methods (in particular, intravenous and oral administration of drugs). The article summarizes that high-quality medical care should be based on evidence-based data. Evidence-based is the primary criterion for assessing the balance and validity of decisions of medical professionals, and this principle has already been enshrined in organic legislation and at the level of medical care standards, but there is a lack of effective tools for assessing the quality of medical technologies from the point of view of their evidence-based. It is necessary to popularize evidence-based medicine, raise public awareness of the essence of evidence-based methods, and also increase the legal awareness of medical personnel. Key words: quality of medical services, evidence-based medicine, indicators of quality of medical care, antibiotic resistance, legal awareness of medical professionals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".