Abstract
The Joint Commission International (JCI) is a widespread practice for healthcare organizations to prove the quality within the operating procedures, patient centeredness and safety, and continuous improvement of service quality. On the other hand, there are governmental initiatives of quality control in organizations where healthcare services provided. Those programs predominantly compliance oriented and focus on regulation adherence rather than on quality of services. The aim of this study is to conduct acomparative analysis of hospital accreditation practices in Kazakhstan and international experience based on research and other publicly available data.Research literature was sought in PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar databases. Non-research evidence was found in governmental websites, JCI alliance and other stakeholder websites. After finding the evidence, a content analysis and institutional analysis were used to examine structural design, evaluation approaches, governance mechanisms, staff involvement, patient safety frameworks, and outcome measurement.The findings demonstrate that there is a principal differences between Kazakhstan’s national accreditation and JCI in the approach to dimensions. If national accreditation boosts over compliance, strict documentation rules, and formal audits with fewer interaction with clinical practices. JCI in contrast, provides more patient and quality oriented management basis for hospitals. Literature and other evidences suggest that JCI accreditation helps to improve communication within departments and promotes outcome based goals with proactive risk management and continuous improvement.Keywords:healthcare accreditation, Kazakhstan, Joint Commission International (JCI), patient safety, quality management, clinical outcomes, healthcare reform.