IntroductionThe hospital mortality rate in low and middle-income countries is much higher than developed countries,thus enhancing the critical and emergency services will reduce rate of mortality. Providing life savingtreatment, continuous monitoring for the critically ill patient survival is defi nitely linked to availabilityand capability of equipment, drugs, medicine and trained personnel. Therefore, the challenges aredetermined and introduce stepwise method to reduce in-hospital mortality.GoalDetermining second level hospital’s capability to provide critical care and suffi ciency of medical supply.Materials and MethodProvince and district hospitals were included in the research and cross-sectional study conducted. Thesecond level hospitals were selected from 9 Provincials hospitals in 4 regions of Mongolia, 5 districthospitals in the capital city of Ulaanbaatar were involved, clustering and randomised in research. Theresearch conducted after obtaining Medical Ethical Committee approval. Statistical analysis usingSPSS-17. Data and some materials were analyzed with Shapiro-Wilk test for assessing the populationis normally distributed.ResultNone of the hospital is able to provide with 24-specialist doctor service in the emergency room and 3 (21,4%) hospitals have available for 24 hours intensive care doctor service.In the emergency settings, capability for FAST ultrasound examination is 8 (57, 1%) hospitals and noneof the hospital is able to provide echocardiography.Even though the number of intensive care bed is 5.6, the number of ventilators of hospitals are 2.5ventilators in 100.000 populations. 1 hospital is equipped with air-oxygen system. 3 (21.4%) of hospitalsare always able to perform central venous catheterization, and only 3 of the hospitals havevet thecapability of non-invasive ventilation. Drug and medicine use for cardiopulmonary resuscitation, availableof atropine and amiodoran were 9 (64.3%) and 5 (35.7%), respectively.Conclusion: None of the intensive care units of hospital, which participated in our research, able toprovide evidence-based emergency care on acutely ill patients.

Background: Accreditation of healthcare institutions serves as a fundamental mechanism for ensuring patient safety and validating the quality of medical services provided to the population. At Intermed Hospital, a quality measurement system for healthcare services has been established since 2015, encompassing 126 quality indicators at both institutional and departmental levels. This system facilitates continuous quality improvement efforts. In this context, quality indicators specific to the endoscopy department play a pivotal role in objectively assessing the quality of endoscopic services. Aim: To assess the quality indicators in gastrointestinal endoscopy unit. Materials and Methods: A retrospective single-center study was conducted by collecting data from the Intermed hospital’s electronic information systems which included HIS and PACS and Quality and Safety Department’s Database and the results were processed using the SPSS software. Ethical approval was granted by the Intermed hospital’s Scientific research committee. The quality of endoscopic services in the Intermed hospital was assessed based on: a) the average values of four quality indicators measured monthly; b) sample survey data from five categories of quality indicators. Results : Between 2016 and 2024, the quality indicators of the endoscopy unit measured as the level of early warning score evaluations for patients was 95.97%±3.33, the level of cases where peripheral blood oxygen saturation decreased during sedation was 1.54%±3.78, the level of cases where patients experienced paradoxiical response during sedation was 5.82%±1.75, surveillance culturing level for validation of endoscopy reprocessing was 11.6%. The endoscopic documentation quality by peer review showed 95.7-100%, the colonoscopy quality indicators were followings as adenoma detection rate: 24.5% Cecal intubation rate: 99.1%, 95.2%, Colonoscope withdrawal average time: 13.28±10.62 minutes, Bowel preparation quality (Boston Scale): 89.3% 95.7%), patient discharge from the recovery room, Average discharge time post-procedure: With propofol alone: 30.92 minutes; With propofol and fentanyl combined: 31.52 minutes, The intermediate risk was 0.28% by the TROOPS evaluation during procedural sedation. Conclusion The quality benchmark levels for these endoscopic units, as determined by a single-center study, can be effectively implemented by benchmark endoscopy centers to enhance their quality and safety operations.