Arellano HN, Martínez LMG

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 13-19
PDF size: 73.97 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study analyzes the surveys and quality programs assessors department; it is a retrospective, transverse and observational study, where the aim is to demonstrate that the emergency department systematizing beside not generate significant additional costs, it increase the user satisfaction and diminishes the time of waiting. Methods: There were studied 3,448 patients attended in the period of January 2003 – June 2007, divided in 2 groups, the first one from January 2003 to February 2005, without systematizing of the department, with 1,722 patients, and the second one from March 2005 - Jun 2007 with the systematizing of the department, with 1,726 patients. Descriptive statistics and χ² study was in use for the study of proportions, univariate results analysis. Results: Time of waiting (≤ 30/› 30 min) p ‹ 0.001, user’s satisfaction (yes/no) p ‹ 0.001, treatment (good/bad) p ‹ 0.001, communication characteristics (clear/confused) NS. The results are forcefully, and undeniably it is worth a sorrow to standardize and to systematize the attention in a service where time is crucial and where all we are or going to be users. The changes proposed to achieve the service systematizing do not need economic significant resources, just organization and training of the personnel, while more qualified the workers of unit care, more will increase the quality of service and satisfaction of the users and the personnel.

REFERENCES

1. Tapia C. El Manual de Salud Pública. 2ª edición, México: Editores Intersistemas. 2006.

2. Carbonell TMA et al. Determinantes del tiempo de espera en urgencias hospitalarias y su relación con la satisfacción del usuario. Emergencias 2006; 18: 30-35.

3. Ortiz ERM, Muñoz S, Mava G et al. Satisfacción con los servicios de salud: El caso de Hidalgo. Caceta Sanitaria, México 2003; 17 (2): 184-185.

4. Gea MT, García MH, Jiménez JM. Opinión de los usuarios sobre la calidad del Servicio de Urgencias del Centro Médico-Quirúrgico del Hospital Virgen de las Nieves. Rev Calidad Asistencial Granada, España 2001; 16: 37-44.

5. 5 Dawson SB, Trapo RG. Bioestadística médica. Ed. México D.F.; El Manual Moderno. 1997.

6. INEGI. Estimaciones de población de CONAPO, 2004.

7. FUNSALUD. Opinión Pública Acerca del Sistema de Atención en México, agosto, 2000.

8. Encuesta Nacional de Satisfacción con los Servicios de Salud, Fundación Mexicana para la Salud. 1994.

9. Fajardo OG. Atención Médica. México Ediciones Científicas; La Prensa Médica Mexicana. 1989.

10. Barnent GO. The application of computer-based medical record system in ambulatory practice. N Engl J Med 1984; 310: 1643-1650.

11. Donabedian A. The quality of care: How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988; 260: 1743/1748.

12. Wakefield M. Health professions education. International Society for Quality in Health Care (ISQua). Congress Annual, Dallas 2003.

13. Laffel G, Blumenthal D. The case for using industrial quality management science in health care organizations. JAMA 1989; 262: 2869-2873.

14. Lyons TF, Payne BC. The relationship of physicians’ medical recording performance to their medical care performance. Med Care 1974; 12: 463-469.