Accessibility and regional features of the emergency medical system in Kazakhstan

Gulzhan Adenova, Galina Kausova, Brukhanov Alexander, Almaz Juvashev, Bakyt Utaganov, Lyazzat Ayaganova, Zhanna Dyusembayeva, Sabina Medukhanova, Konstantin Bulygin, Tazhiyeva Aigul

2026

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.18502/fem.v10i1.22032
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Objective: The study aimed to evaluate the accessibility and performance of emergency medical service (EMS) in Kazakhstan, with a focus on regional disparities and implications for health system development. Methods: A retrospective study on ambulance services in Kazakhstan for 2024 used data from the medical information system. The study found that the ambulance service has 100% automated call management in cities like Astana, Almaty, Shymkent, and 17 regions. The dispatcher processes calls within 5 minutes, categorizing challenges into four types: direct threats to life, potential threats, potential health threats, and acute conditions without danger. The time of arrival for ambulances varies between 10 minutes and 60 minutes. Results: The ambulance service has 20 stations, 96 urban substations, and 195 district offices. 1,499 mobile EMS teams operate in one shift, with a ratio of 18/82. In 2024, 914 city and 585 district brigades operate consultations without team departure, accounting for 10.27% of calls. Kazakhstan has a high proportion of urgent category one calls, accounting for 86% of the total number. This raises concerns about the accuracy of the assessment of urgency, as it may indicate system errors in triage or overloading ambulances with tasks not within their competence. The Ulytau region, North Kazakhstan, East Kazakhstan, Mangystau, Kyzylorda, and Karaganda regions have the highest percentages of urgent calls (94-96%). The study recorded 8,531,652 calls, with 70.8% coming from urban areas and 29.2% of rural regions. The highest urbanization rates were found in republican significance towns like Almaty, Shymkent, and Astana. In all regions, the distribution of calls between urban and rural areas differs significantly from the overall structure for the country (χ² = 3,210,171.3, P< 0.001). Conclusion: The study shows that Kazakhstan's EMS system has fully automated call management, but regional disparities persist. Urgent category one calls are predominant, with urban areas like Almaty, Astana, and Shymkent generating the majority. This highlights structural imbalances in EMS utilization and calls need improvement in triage protocols, resource allocation, and health system capacity