An anonymous complaint from Akkol resident Alexander Strazhev about violations at the district hospital was submitted to the FBRA anonymous chatbot. After surgery, he arrived there with bleeding, but he was examined by the chief doctor's son - a resident doctor who, as the inspection established, worked without a supervisor and entered data under another surgeon's account. Strazhev had to travel to Astana for help. The inspections confirmed medical violations and problems in staffing decisions, but the agencies do not disclose what the chief doctor was punished for or how.
HOW THE COMPLAINT BEGAN
On 22 October 2024, Alexander Strazhev underwent surgery for haemorrhoids complicated by bleeding. A week later his condition worsened, and late in the evening on 29 October he was taken to the admissions department of Akkol District Hospital.
In the electronic form refusing hospitalisation, the doctor listed is surgeon Daniyar Zhamakhanov, but the examination description features Talgat Berdimuratov - the son of the hospital's chief doctor and at that time a resident doctor in general surgery.
Strazhev claims that he did not refuse help and asked for urgent surgery. The hospital's internal protocol also records his demand for intervention, but states that the patient orally refused hospitalisation and decided to turn to the doctor who had previously operated on him.
The next day Strazhev went to a private clinic in Astana, where his bleeding was stopped and a repeat intervention was performed. He then continued treatment with post-haemorrhagic anaemia. The actions of Akkol Hospital staff during the initial visit became the basis for his complaints.
HOW THE HOSPITAL ASSESSED THE DOCTOR'S ACTIONS
The hospital itself was the first to examine the situation. At a meeting of the internal commission on 21 November 2024, Talgat Berdimuratov was listed as a surgeon - without explaining that he was a resident doctor and should have worked under a supervisor's oversight.
Berdimuratov confirmed that he had examined the patient, but said that he had arrived for an urgent call while on home duty without a medical coat. The commission considered the complaint partially justified, finding no violations in the examination and the decision on hospitalisation. The doctor's appearance was named as the only shortcoming.
It was decided to impose a disciplinary sanction on Berdimuratov and he was tasked with holding a seminar for duty doctors. Later the hospital reported that the sanction was issued on 27 November 2024, but did not disclose its type. The protocol shows that the basis was the absence of medical clothing, not the resident's independent work or the use of someone else's account.
WHAT THE EXTERNAL INSPECTION ESTABLISHED
After Strazhev's complaints, in January 2025 the hospital was inspected by the department of the committee for medical and pharmaceutical control of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Akmola Region (DKMFC). Its conclusions differed from the assessment of the internal commission.
The DKMFC established that Talgat Berdimuratov provided assistance to the patient using medicinal preparations without constant supervision by a mentor. According to the agency's conclusion, this led to incorrect tactics in managing the patient. The inspection also confirmed that the resident independently entered the examination results under Daniyar Zhamakhanov's account. Therefore, the doctor's surname in the electronic form did not reflect who actually examined Strazhev.
The violation was classified as a significant degree of risk. The chief doctor was instructed to strengthen control and assign a clinical mentor to the resident. The document required changing the organisation of work, but did not determine personal responsibility for the violation already committed.
HOW THE CHIEF DOCTOR'S SON WORKED AT THE HOSPITAL
Marat Berdimuratov headed Akkol District Hospital in June 2023. Three weeks later, by his own order, he hired his son as a resident doctor in the surgical department. The job involved urgent duty shifts in the evenings, on weekends and on public holidays.
The outbound residency was formalised through trilateral agreements between Astana Medical University, the hospital and Talgat Berdimuratov. The agreements were concluded in 2023 and 2024. They confirm the arrangement of training at a clinical base, but do not refute the DKMFC's conclusion: on the night of Strazhev's visit, the resident provided assistance without constant supervision by a mentor.
After the inspection, on 31 January 2025, the chief doctor appointed Daniyar Zhamakhanov as his son's mentor. The order lists his highest qualification category in the specialty "Paediatric Surgery", whereas Talgat Berdimuratov was doing a residency in general surgery. The health department found no violations in the outbound residency, citing the agreements with the university. At the same time, the mentor was officially assigned only after Strazhev's case and the DKMFC's instruction.
In March 2025, the employment contract with Talgat Berdimuratov was terminated at his own request. Astana Medical University refused to provide Strazhev with information about the resident's training, citing the protection of personal data.
On 24 September 2025, the chief doctor again hired his son at the hospital - now as a duty doctor in surgery with hourly pay. According to Strazhev, Talgat Berdimuratov continues to work and go on urgent duty shifts.
WHY THE ADCS BECAME INTERESTED IN THE STAFFING DECISIONS
Strazhev continued to send complaints, and in November 2025 the hospital's documents were requested by the department of the agency for civil service affairs for Akmola Region. The agency studied Talgat Berdimuratov's education and admission, information about the mentor, remuneration, the agreement with the university and the chief doctor's staffing decisions.
The department's inspection established that the son and spouse of Marat Berdimuratov worked at the hospital. The spouse had been employed as a physician back in 1996, so he had not hired her. However, the manager could issue binding orders and apply incentives and disciplinary sanctions in respect of employees.
According to the department's conclusions, the chief doctor did not notify the health department in writing about the employment of close relatives and the possibility of a conflict of interest. This was qualified as a violation of the requirements of Articles 14 and 15 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Combating Corruption". The agency was recommended to eliminate the violations and consider the manager's disciplinary liability.
In spring 2026, Strazhev appealed this assessment to the central office of the agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan for civil service affairs (ADCS). There it was decided that the materials do not confirm direct subordination between the chief doctor and the relative within the meaning of Article 14, and a review of the qualification was ordered. At the same time, the central office demanded a separate assessment of the staffing and organisational decisions concerning the son under Article 15 - from the point of view of preventing a conflict of interest.
HOW GALINA FEDYUSHKO APPEARED IN THE CONFLICT
While Strazhev was appealing the agencies' responses, the conflict around the hospital went beyond the inspections. In January 2026, Galina Fedyushko, who had worked for many years as a paramedic in the village of Radovka, turned to the police. She spoke out in support of the hospital's management and demanded that the actions of Strazhev and other critics of the institution be investigated.
Earlier, the FBRA wrote about Fedyushko in connection with another conflict in Akkol. She took part in celebrating the opening of the "Agro Protein" plant, although, as the FBRA found from government agencies' responses, the enterprise was not operating at the time and did not have the necessary permits. In that dispute, Fedyushko publicly sided with the enterprise and the akimat. The FBRA did not establish evidence that her actions were coordinated with them.
On 16 January 2026, Fedyushko sent a statement via e-Otinish about the dissemination of distorted information about hospital employees. An appeal on behalf of medical workers was attached to it. In it, Strazhev and other individuals were accused of illegal video recording, social media posts and harassment of employees. The authors asked for the signs of stalking to be investigated, gave a positive character reference to the chief doctor and claimed that his relatives were not in direct subordination.
According to Strazhev, after the statement the police came to him at night. He was going to file a counter-statement against Fedyushko, but by that time she had already flown to Qatar. Strazhev links her appeal to his complaints about the hospital, but reports that he received no direct threats from Fedyushko.
WHY THE CONTENT OF THE SANCTION REMAINED UNKNOWN
In July 2026, the territorial department of the ADCS reported that, after reconsideration, it had sent a new information letter to the health department. In its response, the department confirmed: chief doctor Marat Berdimuratov was brought to disciplinary liability and preventive measures were taken.
Strazhev requested a copy of the order, the basis for the sanction and the measure applied. However, the department refused, since the document is an employer's act and contains personal data. The applicant asked for an anonymised version, but the refusal was upheld.
As a result, only the fact of the sanction has been officially confirmed. From the responses it cannot be established what violation the manager was punished for, what measure was applied, what the preventive measures included and whether the procedure for staffing decisions concerning relatives has changed.
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
The documents show a gap between the internal and external assessments. The hospital saw a dress-code violation, whereas the DKMFC identified shortcomings in the organisation of care and medical documentation. The appointment of a mentor fulfilled the instruction for the future, but did not determine responsibility for what had already happened. The trilateral agreements confirm the format of the outbound residency, but do not replace actual supervision by a mentor.
EDITORIAL OPINION
Almost two years later, the dispute is no longer about whether violations occurred - they have been officially confirmed. What remains open is the outcome: who bore responsibility for allowing the resident to work independently, what measure was applied to the chief doctor and whether the cause of the conflict of interest has been eliminated.
Anonymised information about the sanction would have made it possible to preserve the protection of personal data and show the health department's response. At the same time, the materials do not establish a corruption offence or abuse of powers: this concerns confirmed medical violations and staffing decisions which the ADCS required to be given an additional legal assessment.
