Evaluation of punishments of the municipal Sanitary Surveillance in food services from a Brazilian Northeast capital
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Vigilância Sanitária em Debate |
Texto Completo: | https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/1743 |
Resumo: | Introduction: The regulatory role of health surveillance implies inspection actions by drawing up infraction notices, which are not always publicized. Objective:To identify the publicity of Administrative Proceedings decisions established from assessments in food services by the Municipal Sanitary Surveillance of a Northeast capital of Brazil and to evaluate the punishments imposed. Method:Qualitative cross-sectional study, which used the technique of document analysis; the data were obtained from online consultation with the Official Gazette of the Municipality, from 2014 to 2018. Results:Between 2015 and 2018, 509 cases were found: 16.7% in 2015, 35.9% in 2016, 34.6% in 2017 and 12.8% in 2018. “Warning” was the most applied penalty, in isolation, followed by “fine”. Warning and fine were applied cumulatively with “product destruction”, in 11.0% e 4.9% of cases, respectively. “Total interdiction” was applied cumulatively, 7.7% with a warning and 1.4% with a fine. The most penalized services were: “restaurants and similar” (22.3%), “supermarkets and hypermarkets” (10.3%), “snack bars, tea houses, juices and similar” and “mini-markets, grocery stores and warehouses” (both with 6.9%). The highest percentage is of establishments that could not be classified (36.7%). Conclusions:There is publicity for decisions, but not for infractions. Systematization and evaluation of decisions on health administrative processes is an accountability mechanism and it can be an important health surveillance management tool. For an assessment of the risk factors minimized or eliminated by this tool, it would be necessary to know what motivated the drafting of the infraction notices. |
id |
FIOCRUZ-9_9798ccb13ba36bca2bff7ea9b6269813 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br:article/1743 |
network_acronym_str |
FIOCRUZ-9 |
network_name_str |
Vigilância Sanitária em Debate |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Evaluation of punishments of the municipal Sanitary Surveillance in food services from a Brazilian Northeast capitalAvaliação das autuações da Vigilância Sanitária municipal em serviços de alimentação em uma capital no nordeste do BrasilGood Handling Practices; Health Surveillance; Food servicesBoas Práticas de Manipulação; Vigilância Sanitária; Serviços de alimentaçãoIntroduction: The regulatory role of health surveillance implies inspection actions by drawing up infraction notices, which are not always publicized. Objective:To identify the publicity of Administrative Proceedings decisions established from assessments in food services by the Municipal Sanitary Surveillance of a Northeast capital of Brazil and to evaluate the punishments imposed. Method:Qualitative cross-sectional study, which used the technique of document analysis; the data were obtained from online consultation with the Official Gazette of the Municipality, from 2014 to 2018. Results:Between 2015 and 2018, 509 cases were found: 16.7% in 2015, 35.9% in 2016, 34.6% in 2017 and 12.8% in 2018. “Warning” was the most applied penalty, in isolation, followed by “fine”. Warning and fine were applied cumulatively with “product destruction”, in 11.0% e 4.9% of cases, respectively. “Total interdiction” was applied cumulatively, 7.7% with a warning and 1.4% with a fine. The most penalized services were: “restaurants and similar” (22.3%), “supermarkets and hypermarkets” (10.3%), “snack bars, tea houses, juices and similar” and “mini-markets, grocery stores and warehouses” (both with 6.9%). The highest percentage is of establishments that could not be classified (36.7%). Conclusions:There is publicity for decisions, but not for infractions. Systematization and evaluation of decisions on health administrative processes is an accountability mechanism and it can be an important health surveillance management tool. For an assessment of the risk factors minimized or eliminated by this tool, it would be necessary to know what motivated the drafting of the infraction notices. Introdução: O papel regulador da vigilância sanitária implica, dentre outras, ações fiscalizatórias mediante lavratura de Autos de Infração nem sempre publicizados. Objetivo: Identificar a publicidade das decisões de Processos Administrativos Sanitários instaurados pela Vigilância Sanitária Municipal em Serviços de Alimentação de uma capital do Nordeste brasileiro e avaliar as penalidades impostas. Método:Estudo transversal de abordagem qualitativa, que utilizou a técnica de análise documental. Os dados foram obtidos a partir de consulta on-line ao Diário Oficial do Município, no período de 2015 a 2018. Resultados:Foram encontrados 509 processos, sendo 16,7% em 2015, 35,9% em 2016, 34,6% em 2017 e 12,8% em 2018. “Advertência” foi a penalidade mais aplicada, isoladamente, seguida por “multa”. Advertência e multa foram aplicadas cumulativamente com “inutilização de produtos”, respectivamente em 11,0% e 4,9% dos casos. “Interdição total” foi aplicada sempre cumulada, 7,7% com advertência e 1,4% com multa. Foram mais penalizados: “restaurantes e similares” (22,3%), “supermercados e hipermercados” (10,3%), “lanchonetes, casas de chá, sucos e similares” e “minimercados, mercearias e armazéns” (ambos com 6,9%). O maior percentual foi de estabelecimentos que não puderam ser classificados (36,7%). Conclusões:Há publicidade das decisões, mas não das infrações. A sistematização e a avaliação das decisões de processos administrativos são mecanismos de prestação de contas à sociedade e podem ser importantes ferramentas de gestão em Vigilância Sanitária. Para uma avaliação dos fatores de risco minimizados ou eliminados por essa ferramenta seria necessário conhecer o que motivou a lavratura dos Autos de Infração.Instituto Nacional de Controle de Qualidade em Saúde2021-08-31info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion"Peer-reviewed article""Artículo revisado por pares""Artigo avaliado pelos pares"application/pdfhttps://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/174310.22239/2317-269X.01743Health Surveillance under Debate: Society, Science & Technology ; Vol. 9 No. 3 (2021): August; 159-168Vigilancia en Salud en Debate: Sociedad, Ciencia y Tecnología; Vol. 9 Núm. 3 (2021): Agosto; 159-168Vigil Sanit Debate, Rio de Janeiro; v. 9 n. 3 (2021): Agosto; 159-1682317-269Xreponame:Vigilância Sanitária em Debateinstname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)instacron:FIOCRUZporhttps://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/1743/1328Copyright (c) 2021 Vigilância Sanitária em Debate: Sociedade, Ciência & Tecnologia (Health Surveillance under Debate: Society, Science & Technology) – Visa em Debatehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPessoa, Renata LacerdaLima, Roberval Edson Pinheiro deRolim, Priscilla MouraSeabra, Larissa Mont’AlverneSoares, Sônia2023-06-27T15:13:38Zoai:ojs.visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br:article/1743Revistahttps://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebatePUBhttps://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/oaiincqs.visaemdebate@fiocruz.br || gisele.neves@fiocruz.br2317-269X2317-269Xopendoar:2023-06-27T15:13:38Vigilância Sanitária em Debate - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Evaluation of punishments of the municipal Sanitary Surveillance in food services from a Brazilian Northeast capital Avaliação das autuações da Vigilância Sanitária municipal em serviços de alimentação em uma capital no nordeste do Brasil |
title |
Evaluation of punishments of the municipal Sanitary Surveillance in food services from a Brazilian Northeast capital |
spellingShingle |
Evaluation of punishments of the municipal Sanitary Surveillance in food services from a Brazilian Northeast capital Pessoa, Renata Lacerda Good Handling Practices; Health Surveillance; Food services Boas Práticas de Manipulação; Vigilância Sanitária; Serviços de alimentação |
title_short |
Evaluation of punishments of the municipal Sanitary Surveillance in food services from a Brazilian Northeast capital |
title_full |
Evaluation of punishments of the municipal Sanitary Surveillance in food services from a Brazilian Northeast capital |
title_fullStr |
Evaluation of punishments of the municipal Sanitary Surveillance in food services from a Brazilian Northeast capital |
title_full_unstemmed |
Evaluation of punishments of the municipal Sanitary Surveillance in food services from a Brazilian Northeast capital |
title_sort |
Evaluation of punishments of the municipal Sanitary Surveillance in food services from a Brazilian Northeast capital |
author |
Pessoa, Renata Lacerda |
author_facet |
Pessoa, Renata Lacerda Lima, Roberval Edson Pinheiro de Rolim, Priscilla Moura Seabra, Larissa Mont’Alverne Soares, Sônia |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Lima, Roberval Edson Pinheiro de Rolim, Priscilla Moura Seabra, Larissa Mont’Alverne Soares, Sônia |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Pessoa, Renata Lacerda Lima, Roberval Edson Pinheiro de Rolim, Priscilla Moura Seabra, Larissa Mont’Alverne Soares, Sônia |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Good Handling Practices; Health Surveillance; Food services Boas Práticas de Manipulação; Vigilância Sanitária; Serviços de alimentação |
topic |
Good Handling Practices; Health Surveillance; Food services Boas Práticas de Manipulação; Vigilância Sanitária; Serviços de alimentação |
description |
Introduction: The regulatory role of health surveillance implies inspection actions by drawing up infraction notices, which are not always publicized. Objective:To identify the publicity of Administrative Proceedings decisions established from assessments in food services by the Municipal Sanitary Surveillance of a Northeast capital of Brazil and to evaluate the punishments imposed. Method:Qualitative cross-sectional study, which used the technique of document analysis; the data were obtained from online consultation with the Official Gazette of the Municipality, from 2014 to 2018. Results:Between 2015 and 2018, 509 cases were found: 16.7% in 2015, 35.9% in 2016, 34.6% in 2017 and 12.8% in 2018. “Warning” was the most applied penalty, in isolation, followed by “fine”. Warning and fine were applied cumulatively with “product destruction”, in 11.0% e 4.9% of cases, respectively. “Total interdiction” was applied cumulatively, 7.7% with a warning and 1.4% with a fine. The most penalized services were: “restaurants and similar” (22.3%), “supermarkets and hypermarkets” (10.3%), “snack bars, tea houses, juices and similar” and “mini-markets, grocery stores and warehouses” (both with 6.9%). The highest percentage is of establishments that could not be classified (36.7%). Conclusions:There is publicity for decisions, but not for infractions. Systematization and evaluation of decisions on health administrative processes is an accountability mechanism and it can be an important health surveillance management tool. For an assessment of the risk factors minimized or eliminated by this tool, it would be necessary to know what motivated the drafting of the infraction notices. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-08-31 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion "Peer-reviewed article" "Artículo revisado por pares" "Artigo avaliado pelos pares" |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/1743 10.22239/2317-269X.01743 |
url |
https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/1743 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.22239/2317-269X.01743 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://visaemdebate.incqs.fiocruz.br/index.php/visaemdebate/article/view/1743/1328 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto Nacional de Controle de Qualidade em Saúde |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto Nacional de Controle de Qualidade em Saúde |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Health Surveillance under Debate: Society, Science & Technology ; Vol. 9 No. 3 (2021): August; 159-168 Vigilancia en Salud en Debate: Sociedad, Ciencia y Tecnología; Vol. 9 Núm. 3 (2021): Agosto; 159-168 Vigil Sanit Debate, Rio de Janeiro; v. 9 n. 3 (2021): Agosto; 159-168 2317-269X reponame:Vigilância Sanitária em Debate instname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) instacron:FIOCRUZ |
instname_str |
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) |
instacron_str |
FIOCRUZ |
institution |
FIOCRUZ |
reponame_str |
Vigilância Sanitária em Debate |
collection |
Vigilância Sanitária em Debate |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Vigilância Sanitária em Debate - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
incqs.visaemdebate@fiocruz.br || gisele.neves@fiocruz.br |
_version_ |
1797042046076190720 |