| Literature DB >> 28954166 |
Miriam Francisco de Souza1, Alaneir de Fatima Dos Santos2, Ilka Afonso Reis3, Marcos Antônio da Cunha Santos3, Alzira de Oliveira Jorge2, Antônio Tomaz Gonzaga da Matta Machado2, Eli Iola Gurgel Andrade4, Mariangela Leal Cherchiglia4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Analyze the quality of the National Program for Primary Care Access and Quality Improvement variables to evaluate the coordination of primary care.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28954166 PMCID: PMC5602277 DOI: 10.11606/S1518-8787.2017051007024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Saude Publica ISSN: 0034-8910 Impact factor: 2.106
Distribution of the proportion of each response category. Brazil, 2012.
| Item | Response categories proportion (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | Missing data | |
| Telehealth participationa | 75.4 | 23.6 | n.a. | 0.9 |
| Telehelth usagea | 80.4 | 18.7 | n.a. | 0.9 |
| Clinical qualificationa | 53.0 | 46.9 | n.a. | 0.1 |
| Matrix support actionsb | 14.7 | 41.3 | 43.1 | 0.9 |
| NASF supporta | 42.5 | 56.0 | n.a. | 1.5 |
| CAPS supporta | 57.3 | 41.8 | n.a. | 0.9 |
| Specialists supportc | 32.0 | 39.2 | 27.3 | 1.5 |
| Integrated electronic medical recorda | 88.9 | 11.0 | n.a. | 0.1 |
| Schedule shared by the teama | 22.3 | 77.3 | n.a. | 0.4 |
| Types of referrald | 32.6 | 67.3 | n.a. | 0.1 |
| Registration of higher risk usersa | 53.1 | 46.3 | n.a. | 0.6 |
| Therapeutic protocolse | 38.4 | 61.6 | n.a. | - |
| Request for examsf | 28.8 | 71.2 | n.a. | - |
| Scheduling centera | 9.3 | 90.7 | n.a. | 0 |
| Defined references and flowsa | 42.5 | 55.5 | n.a. | 2.0 |
| Exchange of information EqAB/Specialistsg | 33.1 | 52.3 | 14.6 | 0 |
| Exchange of information Specialists/EqABg | 51.8 | 41.7 | 6.5 | 0 |
| Institutional communication flowh | 52.1 | 39.9 | 8.0 | - |
| Telephone/Interneta | 59.1 | 40.9 | n.a. | - |
| Specialists contact lista | 57.0 | 43.0 | n.a. | 0 |
| Active search in the territoryi | 43.1 | 56.9 | n.a. | 0 |
| Home care survey/mappinga | 29.6 | 70.4 | n.a. | - |
n.a.: not applicable; NASF: Núcleo de Apoio à Saúde da Família (Family Health Support Center); CAPS: Centro de Atenção Psicossocial (Psychosocial Care Center); EqAB: Primary care team
a 1 - No; 2 - Yes.
b 1 - No action; 2 - From 1 to 5 actions; 3 - Above 6 actions.
c 1 - Receives no support; 2 - Support from 1 to 10 CBO (Brazillian Occupation Code); 3 - Support from more than 10 CBO.
d 1 - User tries to schedule an appointment and/or there is no defined path; 2 - Patient leaves the Unit with a scheduled appointment and/or the appointment is scheduled by the Unit, with later notice to the user.
e 1 - It has less than 7 protocols; 2 - It has 7 or more protocols.
f 1 - Requests all exams for less than 7 health conditions; 2 - Request all the exams for 7 to 8 health conditions.
g 1 - Never; 2 - Yes, sometimes; 3 - Always.
h 1 - There is no flow; 2 - There are 1 to 3 flows; 3 - There are more than 4 flows.
i 1 - Performs in up to 6 cases (symptomatic respiratory, failing and monitored women); 2 - Performs in all cases.
Estimates of the items parameters, internal consistency, and correlation with the total score. Brazil, 2012.
| Item | Parameter (SD)a | Internal consistencyb | Correlation with the total score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| a | b1 | b2 | Total (0.8018) | ||
| 1. Telehealth participation | 0.807 (0.025) | 1.630 (0.047) | n.a. | 0.797 | 0.328 |
| 2. Telehealth usage | 0.839 (0.027) | 1.979 (0.056) | n.a. | 0.798 | 0.313 |
| 3. Clinical qualification in team meeting | 1.108 (0.026) | 0.139 (0.017) | n.a. | 0.790 | 0.483 |
| 4. Matrix support actions | 1.266 (0.025) | -1.753 (0.032) | 0.276 (0.015) | 0.784 | 0.568 |
| 5. NASF support | 0.752 (0.022) | -0.413 (0.025) | n.a. | 0.795 | 0.353 |
| 6. CAPS support | 0.814 (0.022) | 0.446 (0.024) | n.a. | 0.794 | 0.377 |
| 7. Specialist support | 0.766 (0.019) | -1.091 (0.033) | 1.390 (0.046) | 0.797 | 0.391 |
| 8. Integrated electronic medical record | 0.905 (0.032) | 2.632 (0.078) | n.a. | 0.800 | 0.271 |
| 9. Schedule shared by the team | 0.588 (0.023) | -2.264 (0.083) | n.a. | 0.801 | 0.246 |
| 10. Types of referral | 0.832 (0.023) | -0.995 (0.031) | n.a. | 0.797 | 0.371 |
| 11. Registration of higher risk users | 0.844 (0.022) | 0.192 (0.021) | n.a. | 0.794 | 0.395 |
| 12. Therapeutic protocols | 1.011 (0.025) | -0.567 (0.021) | n.a. | 0.793 | 0.445 |
| 13. Request for exams | 0.569 (0.021) | -1.703 (0.063) | n.a. | 0.800 | 0.258 |
| 14. Scheduling center | 0.900 (0.034) | -2.872 (0.090) | n.a. | 0.800 | 0.259 |
| 15. Defined references and flows | 1.202 (0.027) | -0.276 (0.017) | n.a. | 0.790 | 0.510 |
| 16. Exchange of information EqAB/Specialists | 0.989 (0.021) | -0.833 (0.024) | 2.125 (0.086) | 0.792 | 0.485 |
| 17. Exchange of information Specialists/EqAB | 1.040 (0.023) | 0.089 (0.018) | 2.988 (0.260) | 0.791 | 0.486 |
| 18. Institutional communication flow | 2.429 (0.058) | 0.063 (0.012) | 1.747 (0.502) | 0.782 | 0.767 |
| 19. Telephone/Internet | 2.618 (0.075) | 0.276 (0.012) | n.a. | 0.786 | 0.749 |
| 20. Specialists contact list | 0.995 (0.024) | 0.341 (0.020) | n.a. | 0.793 | 0.448 |
| 21. Active search in territory | 0.680 (0.021) | -0.450 (0.027) | n.a. | 0.797 | 0.329 |
| 22. Home care survey/mapping | 0.768 (0.023) | -1.267 (0.039) | n.a. | 0.797 | 0.338 |
NASF: Núcleo de Apoio à Saúde da Família (Family Health Support Center); CAPS: Centro de Atenção Psicossocial (Psychosocial Care Center); EqAB: Primary Care Team, SD: standard deviation; n.a.: does not apply
a “a” (discrimination); “b1” and “b2” (response categories parameters).
b Internal consistency with itemexclusion
Figure 1Characteristic curve of item 18 and test information curve.
Distribution of primary care teams according to coordination scores ranges. Brazil, 2012.
| Level (scores) | Absolute frequency (n) | Relative frequency (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Well below average (-3 to -1.5) | 727 | 4.2 |
| Below average (-1.5 to 0.0) | 7,849 | 45.6 |
| Above average (0.0 to 1.5) | 7,791 | 45.3 |
| Well above average (1.5 to 3.0) | 835 | 4.9 |
|
| ||
| Total | 17,202 | 100 |
Figure 2Word cloud: visualization of the response categories frequencies at the “well below average” (left) and “well above average” levels (right).