Responsiveness of Specialized Hearing Rehabilitation Centers in Maceió: User Evaluation

Flores, Nayyara Glicia Calheiros; Jesus, Renata Patrícia Freitas Soares de; Vidal, Suely Arruda

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • CoDAS 32 (5) • 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20202019029 copy

Responsiveness of Specialized Hearing Rehabilitation Centers in Maceió: User Evaluation

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Purpose:

To evaluate the responsiveness of hearing health services as a measure of user satisfaction.

Method:

Cross-sectional study conducted in four Specialized Hearing Rehabilitation Centers (SHRC), accredited by the National Health System (SUS) in Maceió, state of Alagoas, Brazil, henceforth named SHRC-A, -B, -C and -D. The sample size was calculated proportional to the number of users aged >18 years who received hearing aids by SHRC. The Multi-country Survey Study (MCSS) was applied with assessment of seven domains: dignity, autonomy, clear communication, confidentiality, prompt attention, choice of health care provider, and quality basic amenities, using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 4 points, with results presented in graphs and tables (in number and percentage). Responsiveness classification was as follows: very low/low (sum of responses one and two) and good/very good (sum of responses three and four).

Results:

“Dignity” was evaluated as good by over 90% of the respondents, and “confidentiality” was assessed as good by 80% of them, except for one SHRC. “Autonomy” was classified as good by 66.5% of the respondents in SHRC-C and 55.5% in SHRC-A. “Choice of health care provider” was considered poor responsiveness by 27.5% of the respondents in SHRC-B and 35.9% in SHRC-D. Regarding “prompt attention” in receiving hearing aids, 41.2% of the respondents reported that they had to wait six to nine months in SHRC-D and three to six months in the other SHRC 41.8-48.5%.

Conclusion:

Most users evaluated the responsiveness of hearing health services as good, but some MCSS domains need improvement. Studies of this nature provide useful results for the planning and reorganization of services, aiming to improve the assistance process.

Keywords:
Responsiveness; Health Evaluation; Hearing Health Services; Hearing Loss; Hearing Aids

Autonomy	Offer of care/treatment options		Participation in treatment/examination choice		Freedom of choice of health care provider
SHRC responsiveness	n	%	n	%	n	%
SHRC-A (n=117)
Low	47	40.2	46	39.3	113	96.3
Good	70	59.8	71	60.7	4	3.7
SHRC-B (n=66)
Low	21	32.8	16	24.2	64	97.0
Good	45	67.2	50	73.8	2	3.0
SHRC-C (n=79)
Low	19	24.1	15	19.0	69	87.3
Good	60	75.9	64	81.0	9	11.4
No information	-	-	-	-	1	1.3
SHRC-D (n=97)
Low	32	33.0	37	38.1	94	96.9
Good	65	67.0	60	61.9	3	3.1

Clear communication	About treatment		About location		About asking health providers questions		About the right to complain
SHRC responsiveness	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
SHRC-A (n=117)
Low	3	2.6	12	10.3	19	16.2	27	23.1
Good	114	97.4	105	89.7	98	83.8	90	76.9
SHRC-B (n=66)
Low	-	-	5	7.6	6	9.1	13	19.7
Good	66	100.0	61	92.4	60	90.9	53	80.3
SHRC-C (n=79)
Low	-	-	4	5.1	5	6.3	11	13,9
Good	79	100.0	75	94,9	74	93,7	68	86,1
SHRC-D (n=97)
Low	9	9.3	35	36.1	61	62,9	78	80.4
Good	88	90.7	62	63.9	35	36.1	19	19.6
No information	-	-	-	-	1	1.0	-	-

Prompt attention	CER A		CER B		CER C		CER D
Prompt attention	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Up to 3 months	11	9.4	3	4.5	19	24.0	7	7.2
3 \|-- 6 months	51	43.6	32	48.5	33	41.8	18	18.6
6 \|-- 9 months	32	27.3	17	25.8	12	15.2	40	41.2
9 \|–-\| 12 months	23	19.7	14	21.2	15	19.0	32	33.0
Total	117	100.0	66	100.0	79	100.0	97	100.0

Professional by SHRC	Prompt attention (waiting time for receiving professional care)
Professional by SHRC	< 1 h		1 a 2 h		> 3 h
SHRC-A (n = 117)	n	%	n	%	n	%
Social worker^* * The percentage does not add up to 100% as some participants preferred not to answer the questions	22	18.8	62	53.0	10	8.5
Physician^* * The percentage does not add up to 100% as some participants preferred not to answer the questions	16	13.7	45	38.5	56	47.9
Speech-language pathologist (evaluation)	22	18.8	89	76.1	6	5.1
Speech-language pathologist (prosthesis test)	26	22.2	68	58.1	22	18.8
SHRC-B (n = 66)	n	%	n	%	n	%
Social worker	17	25.8	43	65.1	6	9.1
Physician^* * The percentage does not add up to 100% as some participants preferred not to answer the questions	11	16.7	12	18.2	42	63.6
Speech-language pathologist (evaluation)	15	22.7	46	69.7	5	7.6
Speech-language pathologist (prosthesis test)	15	22.7	35	53.1	16	24.2
SHRC-C (n= 79)	n	%	n	%	n	%
Social worker	30	38.0	43	50.4	6	7.6
Physician^* * The percentage does not add up to 100% as some participants preferred not to answer the questions	20	25.3	17	21.5	41	51.9
Speech-language pathologist (evaluation)	30	38.0	46	58.2	3	3.8
Speech-language pathologist (prosthesis test)^* * The percentage does not add up to 100% as some participants preferred not to answer the questions	27	34.2	35	44.3	15	19.0
SHRC-D (n = 97)	n	%	n	%	n	%
Social worker^* * The percentage does not add up to 100% as some participants preferred not to answer the questions	60	61.9	27	27.8	3	3.1
Physician^* * The percentage does not add up to 100% as some participants preferred not to answer the questions	30	30.9	36	37.1	25	25.8
Speech-language pathologist (evaluation)	40	41.2	52	53.6	5	5.2
Speech-language pathologist (prosthesis test)^* * The percentage does not add up to 100% as some participants preferred not to answer the questions	42	43.3	47	48.5	4	4.1

Quality basic amenities/SHRC responsiveness	SHRC-A		SHRC-B		SHRC-C		SHRC-D
Cleanliness^* * As the item “cleanliness” consists of four sub-items, numbers are shown in quadruplicate	n=468	%	n=264	%	n=395	%	n=388	%
Good	414	88.5	244	92.4	382	96.7	274	70.6
Low	52	11.1	20	7.6	13	3.3	106	27.3
Ignored	2	0.4			-	-	8	2.1
Ventilation	n=117	%	n=66	%	n=79	%	n=97	%
Good	60	51.3	37	56.1	40	50.6	23	26.4
Low	57	48.7	29	43.9	39	49.4	64	73.6
Mobility/accessibility	n=117	%	n=66	%	n=79	%	n=97	%
Good	107	91.4	65	99.6	78	98.7	54	62.1
Low	10	8.6	-	-	1	1.3	33	37.9
Ignored	-	-	1	0.4	-	-	-	-

Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia Al. Jaú, 684, 7º andar, 01420-002 São Paulo - SP Brasil, Tel./Fax 55 11 - 3873-4211 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista@codas.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence address: Suely Arruda Vidal, Rua Francisco, da Cunha, 1910, apto 102 - B. Boa Viagem, Recife(PE), Brasil. CEP 51.020-041, E-mail: suelyav@gmail.com