Satisfaction of medical specialists with the procedure of primary accreditation

At present, ensuring high quality standards of professional training of doctors is one of the leading priorities for both the medical education system and the national health care system. And in this regard, the accreditation procedure acts as a mechanism of independent assessment of the quality of medical education and readiness of medical graduates to work independently, taking into account the requirements of practical healthcare. Aim. To study the level of satisfaction of medical specialists with the primary accreditation procedure and determine ways to improve it. Materials and methods. The study of accredited persons’ opinions about the procedure of primary accreditation was implemented in July-August 2024 on the basis of Sechenov University (online questionnaire survey, n = 17,058, 78 accreditation centers in the Russian Federation). Results. According to the data obtained, the majority of the study participants are satisfied with the primary accreditation procedure and believe that it improves the quality of medical services provided to patients, is an important process for assess ing and confirming the qualifications of medical specialists, motivates accredited persons to improve their knowledge and skills in their specialty, but contributes to an increase in the stress level of university graduates. The respondents’ satisfaction with the primary accreditation procedure was largely due to their high level of awareness (95.7 %) and readiness for accreditation tests: 31.4 % of accredited persons rated their readiness at 10 points (on a 10-point scale); 49.8 % chose the answer options “9 points” and “8 points”; 11.9 % believe that their level of readiness corresponded to 7 points. Only 5.9 % admitted that they were not sufficiently prepared for the accreditation tests (scores from 4 to 6 points), and 0.9 % indicated that they were practically unprepared for the initial accreditation (choice in the range of 1–3 points). Conclusion. The results of a comprehensive study of the satisfaction of medical specialists with the primary accreditation procedure indicate its importance as a tool for independent assessment of the quality of professional training, while potential areas for optimizing the organizational support of the accreditation process have been identified.

1. Frenk J., Chen L., Bhutta Z.A., et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010; 376(9756): 1923–1958. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61854-5. PMID: 21112623

2. Alekseeva A.Yu., Balkizov Z.Z., Perelman V.I., et al. Objective structured clinical examination as a tool for accreditation of medical specialists. Medical Education and Professional Development. 2018; 1(31): 15–53 (In Russian). EDN: URLSSN

3. Zvonnikov V.I., Malygin A.A., Semenova T.V., et al. The fairness of assessments in the accreditation of specialists as a problem. Values and meanings. 2023; 2(84): 53–71 (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24412/2071-6427-2023-2-53-71. EDN: LHXYVS

4. Zakharenko G.A., Kurlyanchik A.A., Goldberg A.S., Menshikova L.I. Innovations in the training of medical personnel. Current problems of health care and medical statistics. 2025; 2: 671–689 (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24412/2312-2935-2025-2-671-689. EDN: CYNICL

5. Girotto L.C., Machado K.B., Moreira R.F.C., et al. Impacts of the Accreditation Process for Undergraduate Medical Schools: A Scoping Review. Clin Teach. 2025; 22(2): e70031. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.70031. PMID: 39947225

6. Arja S.B., White B.A.A., Kottathveetil P., Thompson A. What are the perceptions of faculty and academic leaders regarding the impact of accreditation on the continuous quality improvement process of undergraduate medical education programs at Caribbean medical schools? BMC Med Educ. 2024; 24(1): 781. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05699-2. PMID: 39030576

7. Bedoll D., Van Zanten M., McKinley D. Global trends in medical education accreditation. Hum Resour Health. 2021; 19(1): 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-021-00588-x. PMID: 34016122

8. Price T., Lynn N., Coombes L., et al. The International Landscape of Medical Licensing Examinations: A Typology Derived From a Systematic Review. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018; 7(9): 782–790. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2018.32. PMID: 30316226

9. Haist S.A., Katsufrakis P.J., Dillon G.F. The evolution of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE): enhancing assessment of practice-related competencies. JAMA. 2013; 310(21): 2245–2246. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.282328. PMID: 24302081

10. Jiang L.Y., Liu X.C., Nejatian N.P., et al. Health system-scale language models are allpurpose prediction engines. Nature. 2023; 619: 357–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06160-y. PMID: 37286606

11. Isezuo S., Kadiri S., Arogundade F., et al. Assessment reform: Moving from fi xed passing scores to standard setting based passing scores. Med Teach. 2025; 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2025.2515982

12. Peng Q., Luo J., Wang C., et al. Impact of station number and duration time per station on the reliability of Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) scores: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2025; 25(1): 84. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-06691-0. PMID: 39825303

13. Tsichlis J.T., Del Re A.M., Carmody J.B. The Past, Present, and Future of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Skills Examination. Cureus. 2021; 13(8): e17157. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.17157. PMID: 34548971

14. Liu L., Chachad N., Tadjalli A., Rajput V. Decoupling the United States Medical Licensing Examinations (USMLEs) From the Medical Curriculum to Promote Student Well-Being and Professional Identity Development. Cureus. 2025; 17(5): e83335. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.83335. PMID: 40458346

15. Touchie C., Pugh D. Cancel culture: exploring the unintended consequences of cancelling the Canadian national licensing clinical examination. Can Med Educ J. 2022; 13(4): 62– 67. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.73889. PMID: 36091740

16. Kumaravel B., Stewart C., Ilic D. Development and evaluation of a spiral model of assessing EBM competency using OSCEs in undergraduate medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2021; 21: 204. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02650-7. PMID: 33838686

17. Armijo-Rivera S., Fuenzalida-Muñoz B., Vicencio-Clarke S., et al. Advancing the assessment of clinical competence in Latin America: a scoping review of OSCE implementation and challenges in resource-limited settings. BMC Med Educ. 2025; 25(1): 587. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07151-5. PMID: 40259375

18. Rafi A., Anwar M.I. Challenges for implementing WFME standards for accreditation in health professions education in low and middle-income countries: A scoping review. J Pak Med Assoc. 2021; 71(3): 966–976. https://doi.org/10.47391/JPMA.795. PMID: 34057956

19. Blouin D., Tekian A., Kamin C., Harris I.B. The impact of accreditation on medical schools’ processes. Med Educ. 2018; 52(2): 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13461. PMID: 29044652

20. Litvinova T.M., Galuzina I.I., Zasova L.B., Prisyazhnaya N.V. Medical education in Russia: vectors of reboot in pandemic conditions. National Health Care (Russia). 2021; 2(1): 12– 20 (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.47093/2713-069X.2021.2.1.12-20. EDN: VHGGRE

21. Reshetnikov A.V., Prisyazhnaya N.V. Education during the Pandemic: Vectors of Digital Transformation. Sociological Studies. 2022; 4: 149–151 (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250018694-6. EDN: IVSVOX