medigraphic.com
ISSN 0016-3813 (Print)

2013, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Gac Med Mex 2013; 149 (2)

Interpersonal relationships: perception of the communication, treatment and adverse experiences encountered by users of medical units that belong to the Coordinating Commission of the National Institutes of Health and High Specialty Hospitals (CCINSHAE)

Arroyo-Valerio AG, Cortés-Poza D, Aguirre HR, Fuentes GR, Ramírez ROF , Hamui SA

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 134-142
PDF size: 118.03 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction. User’s perception with regard to the attention they received in healthcare units is increasingly being taken into account by the health service providers in order to improve the quality of their service. Aim. Describe how the users perceive the health services provided by the CCINSHAE with regard to the communication with the physicians, the attention of the staff and the adverse personal and institutional experiences and to explore their relation with user’s demographic characteristics, health condition, physical limitations to carry out daily activities and service area. Methods. A questionnaire was designed to collect information about the user and his/her opinion with regard to the healthcare units, the communication with the physicians, the attention of the staff and the adverse personal and institutional experiences. The data were analyzed with STATA using sample weights. Results. A total of 2,176 individuals were interviewed after they had received attention and represent a population of 1,457,964 users, over 6 months, of the CCINSAHE. We then calculated four binary variables that reflect the perception of the users. These four variables were significantly associated with the type of health unit where the user received attention, schooling, limitations to carry out daily activities, facilities provided to the relatives, family income, the use of alternative medicine, and the area of attention. Discussion. A fundamental aspect of the service provided by the healthcare institutions is the communication between the physicians and the users. We found that the perception of the users with regard to the communication with the physician, the attention of the staff, and the adverse personal and institutional experiences was associated with the type of healthcare unit. The federal reference hospitals produced the most unfavorable perception while the regional hospitals produced the most favorable impression. This study enables the decision-making personnel to determine what needs to be modified in order to improve the service provided by the health units.


REFERENCES

  1. Murray CJ, Frenk J. A framework for assessing the performance of health systems. Bull WHO. 2000;78(6):717-31.

  2. Valentine N, De Silva A, Kawabata K, Darby C, Murray CJ, Evans DB. Health system responsiveness: concepts, domains and operationalization. In: Murray CJ, Evans DB, eds. Health systems performance assessment: debates, methods and empiricism. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003. p. 573-96.

  3. Puentes Rosas E, Ruelas E, Martínez Monroy T, Garrido Latorre F. Trato adecuado: respuesta del sistema mexicano de salud a las expectativas no médicas de sus usuarios. Salud Pública Méx. 2005;47 Suppl 1:12-21.

  4. Evans DB, Tan-Torres Edejer T, Lauer J, Frenk J, Murray CJL. Measuring quality: from the system to the provider. Int J Qual Health C. 2011;13(6):439-46.

  5. Puentes Rosas E, Gómez Dantés O, Garrido Latorre F. Trato a los usuarios en los servicios públicos de salud en México. Rev Panam Salud Pública. 2006;19(6):394-402.

  6. Peltzer K. Patient experiences and health system responsiveness in South Africa. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:117. doi: 10.1186/1472- 6963-9-119.

  7. Coulter A, Jenkinson C. European patients’ views on the responsiveness of health systems and healthcare providers. Eur J Public Health. 2005;15(4):355-60.

  8. Ducuara Mora PE, Garzón Cortes KI, Álvarez Cely DX, Vidal Rivera YA. Experiencias de la satisfacción en salud en instituciones sanitarias de los sectores públicos y privados. Revista CES Salud Pública. 2011;2(2):204-17.

  9. Verlinde E, De Laender N, De Maesschalck S, Deveugele M, Willems S. The social gradient in doctor-patient communication. International Journal for Equity in Health. 2011;11:12.

  10. Bronfman M, Castro R, Zúñiga E, Miranda C, Oviedo J. Del «cuánto» al «por qué»: la utilización de los servicios de salud desde la perspectiva de los usuarios. Salud Pública Méx. 1997;39:442-50.

  11. Página de la Comisión Coordinadora de Institutos Nacionales de Salud y Hospitales de Alta Especialidad. http://www.ccinshae.gob.mx/. Consultado el 19 de enero de 2012.

  12. Sistema Nacional de Indicadores en Salud (INDICAS). Dirección General de Calidad y Educación en Salud. Secretaría de Salud. www.calidad. salud.gob.mx. Consultado el 15 de febrero de 2012.

  13. Programa de acción específico 2007-2012. Sistema Integral de Calidad en Salud (SICALIDAD). http://www.calidad.salud.gob.mx/doctos/calidad/ pa_sicalidad.pdf. Consultado el 26 de junio de 2012.

  14. Jastin JA. Why patients use alternative medicine. JAMA. 1998;279(19):1548-53.

  15. Hamui L, Fuentes R, Aguirre R, Ramírez OF. Expectativas y experiencias de los usuarios del Sistema de Salud en México. Un estudio de satisfacción con la atención médica. México D.F. Facultad de Medicina, UNAM, 2013.

  16. Kowal P, Naidoo N, Williams SR, Chatterji S. Performance of the health system in China and Asia as measured by responsiveness. Health. 2011;3(10):638-46.

  17. Ortiz Espinosa RM, Muñoz Juárez S, Lechuga Martín del Campo D, Torres Carreño E. Consulta externa en instituciones de salud de Hidalgo, México, según la opinión de los usuarios. Rev Panam Salud Pública. 2003;13(4):229-38.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com