Tipologia da estrutura das unidades básicas de saúde brasileiras: os 5 R
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Cadernos de Saúde Pública |
Texto Completo: | https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/6533 |
Resumo: | The structural typology of Brazil’s 38,812 primary healthcare units (UBS) was elaborated on the basis of the results from a survey in cycle 1 of the National Program for Improvement in Access and Quality of Primary Care. Type of team, range of professionals, shifts open to the public, available services, and installations and inputs were the sub-dimensions used. For each sub-dimension, a reference standard was defined and a standardized score was calculated, with 1 as the best. The final score was calculated by factor analysis. The final mean score of Brazilian UBS was 0.732. The sub-dimension with the worst score was “installations and inputs” and the best was “shifts open to the public”. The primary healthcare units were classified according to their final score in five groups, from best to worst: A, B, C, D, and E. Only 4.8% of the Brazilian UBS attained the maximum score. The typology showed specific characteristics and a regional distribution pattern: units D and/or E accounted for nearly one-third of the units in the North, and two-thirds of units A were situated in the South and Southeast of Brazil. Based on the typology, primary healthcare units were classified according to their infrastructure conditions and possible strategies for intervention, as follows: failed, rudimentary, limited, fair, and reference (benchmark). The lack of equipment and inputs in all the units except for type A limits their scope of action and case-resolution capacity, thus restricting their ability to respond to health problems. The typology presented here can be a useful tool for temporal and spatial monitoring of the quality of infrastructure in UBS in Brazil. |
id |
FIOCRUZ-5_194e83d664b6c9c298d178db2d1af3cf |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.teste-cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br:article/6533 |
network_acronym_str |
FIOCRUZ-5 |
network_name_str |
Cadernos de Saúde Pública |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Tipologia da estrutura das unidades básicas de saúde brasileiras: os 5 RAtenção Primária à SaúdeCentros de SaúdeAvaliação de Serviços de SaúdeThe structural typology of Brazil’s 38,812 primary healthcare units (UBS) was elaborated on the basis of the results from a survey in cycle 1 of the National Program for Improvement in Access and Quality of Primary Care. Type of team, range of professionals, shifts open to the public, available services, and installations and inputs were the sub-dimensions used. For each sub-dimension, a reference standard was defined and a standardized score was calculated, with 1 as the best. The final score was calculated by factor analysis. The final mean score of Brazilian UBS was 0.732. The sub-dimension with the worst score was “installations and inputs” and the best was “shifts open to the public”. The primary healthcare units were classified according to their final score in five groups, from best to worst: A, B, C, D, and E. Only 4.8% of the Brazilian UBS attained the maximum score. The typology showed specific characteristics and a regional distribution pattern: units D and/or E accounted for nearly one-third of the units in the North, and two-thirds of units A were situated in the South and Southeast of Brazil. Based on the typology, primary healthcare units were classified according to their infrastructure conditions and possible strategies for intervention, as follows: failed, rudimentary, limited, fair, and reference (benchmark). The lack of equipment and inputs in all the units except for type A limits their scope of action and case-resolution capacity, thus restricting their ability to respond to health problems. The typology presented here can be a useful tool for temporal and spatial monitoring of the quality of infrastructure in UBS in Brazil.La tipología de la estructura de las 38.812 unidades básicas de salud (UBS) brasileñas se elaboró en base a los resultados del censo del ciclo 1 del Programa Nacional de Mejora del Acceso y de la Calidad de la Atención Básica: tipo de equipo; elenco de profesionales; turnos de funcionamiento; servicios disponibles e instalaciones e insumos fueron las subdimensiones utilizadas. Para cada subdimensión se definió un patrón de referencia y se calculó un marcador padronizado, siendo 1 el mejor. El marcador final se calculó basándose en el análisis factorial. El marcador medio final de las UBS brasileñas fue 0,732. La subdimensión con el peor marcador fue “instalaciones e insumos” y la que tuvo el mejor, “turnos de funcionamiento”. Las unidades fueron agrupadas de acuerdo con su marcador final, en 5 grupos, de la mejor a la peor situación: A, B, C, D, E. Solamente un 4,8% de las UBS brasileñas alcanzaron el marcador máximo. La tipología evidencia características y un patrón de distribución regional específicos: unidades D y/o E responden a casi un tercio de las unidades de la Región Norte, y dos tercios de las unidades A están situados en el Sur y Sudeste. En base a la tipología, las UBS fueron denominadas en función de sus condiciones de estructura y posibles estrategias de intervención en: reprobada, rudimentaria, restringida, regular y referencia. La carencia de equipamientos e insumos observada en todas las UBS, con excepción de las del Tipo A, restringe el alcance de acciones y la resolutividad de las UBS, limitando a su capacidad de respuesta a los problemas de salud. La tipología aquí presentada puede ser un instrumento para el seguimiento de la calidad de la estructura de las UBS en el país, temporal y espacialmente.A tipologia da estrutura das 38.812 unidades básicas de saúde (UBS) brasileiras foi elaborada com base nos resultados do censo do ciclo 1 do Programa Nacional de Melhoria do Acesso e da Qualidade da Atenção Básica. Tipo de equipe, elenco de profissionais, turnos de funcionamento, serviços disponíveis e instalações e insumos foram as subdimensões utilizadas. Para cada subdimensão foi definido padrão de referência e calculado escore padronizado, sendo 1 o melhor. O escore final foi calculado baseando-se na análise fatorial. O escore médio final das UBS brasileiras foi de 0,732. A subdimensão com o pior escore foi “instalações e insumos” e a com o melhor, “turnos de funcionamento”. As unidades foram agrupadas de acordo com o seu escore final, em cinco grupos, da melhor para a pior situação: A, B, C, D, E. Apenas 4,8% das UBS brasileiras atingiram o escore máximo. A tipologia evidencia características e padrão de distribuição regional específicos: unidades D e/ou E respondem por quase um terço das unidades da Região Norte, e dois terços das unidades A estão situados no Sul e Sudeste. Com base na tipologia, as UBS foram denominadas em função de suas condições de estrutura e possíveis estratégias de intervenção em: reprovada, rudimentar, restrita, regular e referência. A carência de equipamentos e insumos observada em todas as UBS, com exceção das do tipo A, restringe o escopo de ações e a resolutividade das UBS, limitando a sua capacidade de resposta aos problemas de saúde. A tipologia aqui apresentada pode ser um instrumento para o acompanhamento da qualidade da estrutura das UBS no país, temporal e espacialmente.Reports in Public HealthCadernos de Saúde Pública2017-08-21info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlapplication/pdfhttps://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/6533Reports in Public Health; Vol. 33 No. 8 (2017): AugustCadernos de Saúde Pública; v. 33 n. 8 (2017): Agosto1678-44640102-311Xreponame:Cadernos de Saúde Públicainstname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)instacron:FIOCRUZporhttps://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/6533/13998https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/6533/13999Aylene BousquatLigia GiovanellaMarcia Cristina Rodrigues FaustoEdgard Rodrigues FusaroMaria Helena Magalhães de MendonçaJuliana GagnoAna Luiza d’Ávila Vianainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-03-06T15:29:23Zoai:ojs.teste-cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br:article/6533Revistahttps://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csphttps://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/oaicadernos@ensp.fiocruz.br||cadernos@ensp.fiocruz.br1678-44640102-311Xopendoar:2024-03-06T13:07:29.468679Cadernos de Saúde Pública - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)true |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Tipologia da estrutura das unidades básicas de saúde brasileiras: os 5 R |
title |
Tipologia da estrutura das unidades básicas de saúde brasileiras: os 5 R |
spellingShingle |
Tipologia da estrutura das unidades básicas de saúde brasileiras: os 5 R Aylene Bousquat Atenção Primária à Saúde Centros de Saúde Avaliação de Serviços de Saúde |
title_short |
Tipologia da estrutura das unidades básicas de saúde brasileiras: os 5 R |
title_full |
Tipologia da estrutura das unidades básicas de saúde brasileiras: os 5 R |
title_fullStr |
Tipologia da estrutura das unidades básicas de saúde brasileiras: os 5 R |
title_full_unstemmed |
Tipologia da estrutura das unidades básicas de saúde brasileiras: os 5 R |
title_sort |
Tipologia da estrutura das unidades básicas de saúde brasileiras: os 5 R |
author |
Aylene Bousquat |
author_facet |
Aylene Bousquat Ligia Giovanella Marcia Cristina Rodrigues Fausto Edgard Rodrigues Fusaro Maria Helena Magalhães de Mendonça Juliana Gagno Ana Luiza d’Ávila Viana |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Ligia Giovanella Marcia Cristina Rodrigues Fausto Edgard Rodrigues Fusaro Maria Helena Magalhães de Mendonça Juliana Gagno Ana Luiza d’Ávila Viana |
author2_role |
author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Aylene Bousquat Ligia Giovanella Marcia Cristina Rodrigues Fausto Edgard Rodrigues Fusaro Maria Helena Magalhães de Mendonça Juliana Gagno Ana Luiza d’Ávila Viana |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Atenção Primária à Saúde Centros de Saúde Avaliação de Serviços de Saúde |
topic |
Atenção Primária à Saúde Centros de Saúde Avaliação de Serviços de Saúde |
description |
The structural typology of Brazil’s 38,812 primary healthcare units (UBS) was elaborated on the basis of the results from a survey in cycle 1 of the National Program for Improvement in Access and Quality of Primary Care. Type of team, range of professionals, shifts open to the public, available services, and installations and inputs were the sub-dimensions used. For each sub-dimension, a reference standard was defined and a standardized score was calculated, with 1 as the best. The final score was calculated by factor analysis. The final mean score of Brazilian UBS was 0.732. The sub-dimension with the worst score was “installations and inputs” and the best was “shifts open to the public”. The primary healthcare units were classified according to their final score in five groups, from best to worst: A, B, C, D, and E. Only 4.8% of the Brazilian UBS attained the maximum score. The typology showed specific characteristics and a regional distribution pattern: units D and/or E accounted for nearly one-third of the units in the North, and two-thirds of units A were situated in the South and Southeast of Brazil. Based on the typology, primary healthcare units were classified according to their infrastructure conditions and possible strategies for intervention, as follows: failed, rudimentary, limited, fair, and reference (benchmark). The lack of equipment and inputs in all the units except for type A limits their scope of action and case-resolution capacity, thus restricting their ability to respond to health problems. The typology presented here can be a useful tool for temporal and spatial monitoring of the quality of infrastructure in UBS in Brazil. |
publishDate |
2017 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2017-08-21 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/6533 |
url |
https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/6533 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/6533/13998 https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/6533/13999 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Reports in Public Health Cadernos de Saúde Pública |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Reports in Public Health Cadernos de Saúde Pública |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Reports in Public Health; Vol. 33 No. 8 (2017): August Cadernos de Saúde Pública; v. 33 n. 8 (2017): Agosto 1678-4464 0102-311X reponame:Cadernos de Saúde Pública instname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) instacron:FIOCRUZ |
instname_str |
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) |
instacron_str |
FIOCRUZ |
institution |
FIOCRUZ |
reponame_str |
Cadernos de Saúde Pública |
collection |
Cadernos de Saúde Pública |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Cadernos de Saúde Pública - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
cadernos@ensp.fiocruz.br||cadernos@ensp.fiocruz.br |
_version_ |
1798943384898895872 |