It is possible that in the case of a short, non-dangerous illness or the need to obtain a certain medical document, the identity of the doctor is not something defining. Any average physician can easily perform the necessary routine work and understand a standard situation.

In cases of chronic diseases, life-threatening situations, determining a medical prognosis or implementing a preventive approach, the personality of a doctor is decisive.

Health is the greatest human value and priority. This is extremely acute for people with medical problems. One of the critical questions they face is who to trust themselves. It is quite clear that the success of treatment largely depends on the constructive functioning of both links of the doctor-patient axis. The patient is the central (permanent) link in this scheme. Actively or passively, he chooses a trusted person – a doctor (variable), thus determining the further fate of the entire axis.

The definition of a “good doctor” can be viewed from different angles.

From the point of view of most patients, a “good” doctor should first of all be approachable, attentive and polite. As a rule, such a doctor responds flexibly to opinions and requests, making them the basis of his medical decisions and actions. His professionalism is viewed through the prism of these merits. In his medical recommendations, as a rule, there are sedatives, pain relievers and all kinds of symptomatic medications. Treatment regimens are replete with a variety of prescriptions.

From the point of view of certain religious groups, a “good” doctor is defined by a priest who provides medical contact between the group and trusted doctors.

From an administrative point of view, “good” is, first of all, a doctor who accurately maintains medical records, has no disciplinary penalties and complaints.

A “good doctor” can be recommended by advertisements, television programs, and identified by appearance and charisma. Doctors are also chosen with the help of word of mouth.

But perhaps the most objective information is possessed by the recommendations of colleagues with whom he works. A “good” doctor is, first of all, a professional who is able to make the right decision and carry it out responsibly. Its weak side may be insufficient attention to the patient and employment.

Choosing a doctor only on the basis of his status (professor, head of department, laureate) can be very problematic. A scientific degree is generally related to the quantity and quality of published research papers, not necessarily in the main clinical specialty and not always of clinical value. A well-known professor can be, above all, a good organizer or researcher.

Doctors usually become status doctors at the end of their career, and not at its peak. On the other hand, for certain people, such a choice can enhance a sense of inner confidence and provide additional benefits that work for the result.

Such statements as “every doctor is good,” “a good doctor only works in a certain clinic,” or “only a good private doctor” is not personally oriented towards the doctor and does not hold up to scrutiny. An important dilemma is choosing a private doctor. The answer depends on the patient’s financial capabilities and the belief that his choice is optimal and appropriate in this situation. There is no doubt that the financial interest of the doctor affects his motivation and, consequently, the results of treatment. The cost-effectiveness of the treatment may in the end justify the financial costs.

On the other hand, the economic interest of a private physician may be a factor influencing the choice of treatment tactics. So, in the case of borderline indications, an unscrupulous doctor can tip the scales towards the procedure, on which he can earn more.

The chosen doctor must be a professional. Professionalism in healing is alike art. He, in contrast to populism, is based on the creative possession of deep knowledge and medical intuition. Professionalism is constant professional development, a real understanding of medical and technical capabilities and limitations, the ability to make optimal decisions in a specific medical situation and implement them. The professional must clearly understand the strengths and weaknesses of a particular hospital, his team, and himself.

A feeling of trust in the chosen doctor is very important in the treatment process. It is formed over time, in the process of meeting, discussing relevant issues, making decisions and evaluating the results of treatment. The patient’s individual faith in the doctor, based on intuition, language and mental closeness, is also an indicator of the correctness of your choice.

In high-risk clinical situations, such as heart surgery, coronary angiography, or rare diseases, the choice of the place of treatment should be considered along with the choice of the doctor. As a rule, large hospitals that perform a large number of operations or specialize in a particular type of pathology are preferred. The operator who performs more procedures in a given period of time and works in a team, as a rule, has better results and fewer complications. Another advantage of large hospitals is the ability to provide qualified medical care around the clock.