| Literature DB >> 28830521 |
Thiago Augusto Hernandes Rocha1, Núbia Cristina da Silva2, Pedro Vasconcelos Amaral3, Allan Claudius Queiroz Barbosa4, João Victor Muniz Rocha5, Viviane Alvares2, Dante Grapiuna de Almeida6, Elaine Thumé7, Erika Bárbara Abreu Fonseca Thomaz8, Rejane Christine de Sousa Queiroz8, Marta Rovery de Souza9, Adriana Lein10, Daniel Paulino Lopes11, Catherine A Staton10, João Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci10, Luiz Augusto Facchini12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unequal distribution of emergency care services is a critical barrier to be overcome to assure access to emergency and surgical care. Considering this context it was objective of the present work analyze geographic access barriers to emergency care services in Brazil. A secondary aim of the study is to define possible roles to be assumed by small hospitals in the Brazilian healthcare network to overcome geographic access challenges.Entities:
Keywords: Emergency health services; Health care evaluation mechanisms; Health services accessibility; Hospitals; Low-volume hospitals; Rural hospitals; Spatial analysis; Spatial autocorrelation
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28830521 PMCID: PMC5568346 DOI: 10.1186/s12939-017-0645-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Equity Health ISSN: 1475-9276
Fig. 1Brazilian states, regions and hospital network
Characterization of Brazilian health care network
| Small hospitals | High Complexity Centers | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Number of beds -mean (SD) | SH Beds per 1000 people |
| Number of beds -mean (SD) | HCC Beds per 1000 people | |
| Center- West | 375 (13.52) | 24.57 (12.74) | 1.64 (1.76) | 204 (6.65) | 112 (117.05) | 2.41 (1.71) |
| Northeast | 1119 (40.34) | 26.73 (15.44) | 1.74 (1.41) | 821 (26.75) | 103.26 (107.88) | 1.63 (1.05) |
| North | 278 (10.02) | 26.71 (13.35) | 1.3 (0.91) | 251 (8.18) | 90.47 (75.01) | 1.6 (0.97) |
| Southeast | 606 (21.85) | 32.15 (16.67) | 1.55 (2.09) | 1245 (40.57) | 139.37 (142.97) | 2.11 (1.53) |
| South | 396 (14.28) | 30.61 (16.06) | 3.13 (2.51) | 548 (17.86) | 119.18 (123.43) | 3.31 (2.15) |
| Brazil | 2774 | 28.17 (15.5) | 1.95 (2.05) | 3069 | 119.09 (124.34) | 2.08 (1.57) |
Distance from ECS or Surgical care
Fig. 2Distance among Small Hospitals (SH) and High Complexity Centers (HCC), in Brazil
Brazilian municipalities and distance patterns among Small Hospitals (SH) and High Complexity Centers (HCC)
| Municipalities | ||
|---|---|---|
|
| % | |
| High Complexity Centers | 432 | 7.76 |
| Small Hospital in less than 60 km from high complexity center of reference | 3116 | 55.99 |
| Small Hospital between 60 km and 90 km from high complexity center of reference | 787 | 14.14 |
| Small Hospital between 90 km and 120 km from high complexity center of reference | 406 | 7.30 |
| Small Hospital between in more than 120 km from high complexity center of reference | 824 | 14.81 |
| Total | 5565 | 100.00 |
Fig. 3Accessibility index for (a) Small Hospitals in Brazil. Darker colors mean higher cumulative accessibility to hospital beds rate by population
Fig. 4Accessibility index for High Complexity Centers in Brazil. Darker colors mean higher cumulative accessibility to hospital beds rate by population
MERS distribution across Brazilian regions
| Center- West | Northeast | North | Southeast | South | Brazil | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distribution of selected municipalities | 268 | 706 | 148 | 342 | 131 | 1595 |
| MESR Adherence-mean (SD) | 69.13 (15.07) | 63.05 (9.86) | 67.51 (9.86) | 74.76 (10.38) | 66.77 (11.86) | 67.30 (12.96) |
Fig. 5Municipalities with above average access to SH and below average access to HCC considering the minimum emergency service requirements
Fig. 6Spatial association of adherence to MESR of municipalities in regions of above average access to SH and below average access to HCC
Small hospitals as a possible solution to improve ECS gap of access
| Center- West | Northeast | North | Southeast | South | Brazil | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Municipalities classified as ECS Hotspots (% of Brazil) | 143 (2.57) | 26 (0.47) | 33 (0.59) | 321(5.77) | 66(1.19) | 589(10.58) |
| Population potentially benefited in hotspot areas | 2,047,828 | 575,112 | 226,881 | 4,681,838 | 1,048,436 | 8,580,095 |