Navegando por Palavras-chave "Avaliação De Processos E Resultados Em Cuidados De Saúde"

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
  • Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
    Item
    Somente Metadadados
    Avaliação da classificação de risco em um serviço de emergência da Bahia
    (Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), 2020-06-25) Jesus, Ana Paula Santos De [UNIFESP]; Batista, Ruth Ester Assayag [UNIFESP]; Universidade Federal de São Paulo
    Objectives: To associate the risk classification categories with demographic profile, clinical aspects, comorbidities, times of care and patient outcomes in the emergency department, to assess the Manchester Screening System. Methods: Cross-sectional, analytical study. Patients aged 18 years or older were included in relation to the urgency of care under the Manchester Protocol in an emergency department. For statistical processing and analysis, the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS), version 23 was used. Descriptive analysis was performed using the calculations of mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum. For categorical variables, frequency and percentage were calculated. Chi-square test, Student's t test, analysis of variance and generalized linear model were used, with a significance level of 5%. Comorbid load was calculated using the Charlson comorbidity index. Results: Data from 3,624 medical records were analyzed. Age ranged from 18 to 114 years, with a mean of 48.4 ± 18.7 years. There was a predominance of females (51.8%), brown skin (94.4%; n = 2,751), those from the household (88.1%), those classified in the yellow risk category (31.5%) and those with outcome of hospital discharge (42.9%). White individuals were older, and men had a higher percentage of red risk when compared to women (p = 0.0018). Patients classified in the high priority categories (red and orange) had a higher frequency of comorbidities, altered vital signs, cardiac complaints, external causes, two or more tests performed and death. The average waiting time to start the risk classification and the duration of the classification were longer than recommended, except the red category. The average waiting time for medical care in the red and orange categories was significantly longer than estimated. The death outcome was associated with the red category, which had shorter average waiting times for care and reduced stay in the emergency department. The average score on the age-adjusted comorbidity index was higher in patients in the red and white categories, with vascular and endocrine complaints, and those who underwent cranial tomography, with a high risk of mortality (p <0.0001). Hospital admission, transfer and death were associated with higher mean comorbidity scores (p <0.0001). Conclusion: The use of the Manchester Triage System was essential to prioritize severe cases, adequate use of diagnostic resources and the identification of a higher risk for hospitalization and death. There was a difference between the average waiting time for medical care and that recommended by the protocol. Despite the prioritization of urgent cases, improvements must be implemented to organize the flow of care, aiming at reducing waiting times, especially in high priority categories. The evaluation of comorbid load can be used to establish the clinical priority, defined by the Manchester Protocol, when it is desired to identify patients with the highest chances of progressing to death.