Satisfação dos usuários dos centros de atenção psicossocial da região Sul do Brasil

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate user satisfaction with psychosocial healthcare services. METHODS:Qualitative and quantitative study conducted in psychosocial healthcare services in the states of Paraná, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul, Southern Brazil, in 2006. The study combined quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative epidemiological data from a cross-sectional study including 1,162 users of 30 psychosocial healthcare services was used. The instrument used to evaluate users' satisfaction was the Brazilian version of the WHO Users' Satisfaction Scale (SATIS-BR), a 1 to 5-point scale. Qualitative data was collected from fi ve case studies using a fourth generation approach. Information was obtained from fi eld observations and interviews (between ten and 13 users in each fi eld, totaling 57 users) and presented to users in validation and negotiation workshops. RESULTS:The SATIS-BR scale showed that users positively evaluated all items, overall mean 4.4 (SD=0.4). Communication and relationship with psychosocial healthcare services staff had mean 4.5 (SD=0.5), and access to information through staff had mean 4.8. Satisfaction with care service was the lowest, mean 4.1, and general service infrastructure had mean 3.9. The qualitative study revealed that, according to users, the quality of treatment provided was good and the outcome was satisfactory. Their new status, better access to services, ending of their physical and social isolation, response to their demands and helping them reorganize their lives -all contributed to users' satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS:The complementary results of both study approaches showed that users are satisfi ed with care provided at the psychosocial healthcare services studied.

Perfil dos usuários de serviços de Saúde Mental do município de Lorena - São Paulo

“…These results concur with those of studies performed at mental health services in other counties (20)(21)(22) .…”

Assessment of Patient, Family and Staff Satisfaction in a Mental Health Service

“…The results concerning the patient sample that indicate moderate overall satisfaction with the service contradict those of international (Blenkiron & Hammill, 2003;Gani et al, 2011;Holikatti et al, 2012) and Brazilian studies (Heckert et al, 2006;Kantorski et al, 2009;, which report high levels of satisfaction. One potential explanation for this difference, especially in comparison to Brazilian studies, may be related to the type of service assessed.…”

“…The family caregivers were satisfied with information received; however, 58% of the patients were moderately satisfied or dissatisfied with this aspect. Other studies (Kantorski et al, 2009; also found low levels of satisfaction among patients in regard to information received. According to Ruggeri (2010), the quantity and quality of information provided to patients is a predictor of the level of satisfaction.…”

“…The service's appearance and comfort level caused dissatisfaction among patients and workers. Other Brazilian studies also found moderate or low levels of satisfaction among patients (Camilo et al, 2012;Heckert et al, 2006;Kantorski et al, 2009) and workers concerning this aspect (De Marco et al, 2008;Ishara et al, 2014;Rebouças et al, 2007). These findings may be explained by a lack of public investment in the proper maintenance of these services (Andreoli, Almeida-Filho, Martin, Mateus, & Mari, 2007).…”

“…Various studies have assessed mental health services using satisfaction measures and most focused on patient satisfaction (Blenkiron & Hammill, 2003;Gani et al, 2011;Heckert, Teixeira, & Trindade, 2006;Holikatti et al, 2012;Kantorski et al, 2009;Silva, Bandeira, Scalon, & Quáglia, 2012), followed by that of healthcare providers (De Marco, Cítero, Moraes, & Nogueira-Martins, 2008;Evans et al, 2006;Hannigan, Edwards, Coyle, Fothergill, & Burnard, 2000;Ishara et al, 2014;Pelisoli, Moreira, & Kristensen, 2007;Rebouças et al, 2007). The satisfaction of families was the least studied (Bandeira et al, 2011;Perreault et al, 2011;Santos & Cardoso, 2014;Stengard, Honkonen, Koivisto, & Salokangas, 2000).…”