Admittance of Risk-Classified Cases: Assessment of Hospital Emergency Services

Costa, Maria Antonia Ramos; Versa, Gelena Lucinéia Gomes da Silva; Bellucci Júnior, José Aparecido; Inoue, Kelly Cristina; Sales, Catarina Aparecida; Matsuda, Laura Misue

doi:10.5935/1414-8145.20150065

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Research • Esc. Anna Nery 19 (3) • Jul-Sep 2015 • https://doi.org/10.5935/1414-8145.20150065 copy

Admittance of Risk-Classified Cases: Assessment of Hospital Emergency Services

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Objective:

Current paper evaluates admittance of risk-classified cases in two hospital emergency services.

Methods:

The exploratory, descriptive and quantitative research was undertaken between March and May 2013, with 47 nursing professionals at two hospital emergency units in the state of Paraná, Brazil, who answered the questionnaire.

Results:

Acceptance of Risk-classified Cases was reported hazardous at the two units; the lowest rates refer to issues on the place the accompanying person would stay and to discussions on the flowchart. The best assessment occurred in the attendance of less serious cases.

Conclusion:

The hazardous assessment at the two health units was mainly due to the non-compliance with certain basic principles of its guidelines of the Acceptance of Risk-classified Cases.

Keywords:
User Embracement; Nursing; Emergency Service, Hospital

Score		1		2		3		4		5		Weighted Average
Dimension/Items		A*	B**	A*	B**	A*	B**	A*	B**	A*	B**	A*	B**
Dimension Structure
1	User/companion comfort	2	7	10	10	12	15	24	44	10	-	3.05	2.71
2	Welcoming ambiance	-	3	4	10	3	15	52	48	15	15	3.89	3.25
3	Periodic training about the ARC	2	2	20	8	3	42	24	28	-	5	2.57	3.03
4	Privacy in the consultations	-	3	14	4	9	12	32	56	5	25	3.15	3.57
5	Companion welcoming	3	3	20	18	3	12	20	36	-	15	2.42	3.00
6	Environmental signage	-	3	14	6	9	12	36	56	-	20	3.10	3.46
7	Team communication	3	1	12	10	12	18	20	36	5	35	2.73	3.57
Process Dimension
8	User safety and comfort	1	1	6	6	3	15	44	56	15	25	3.63	3.67
9	Attendance of non-serious cases	-	4	4	14	-	12	40	40	35	15	4.15	3.03
10	Knowledge of the ARC conducts	4	4	14	24	6	18	24	16	-	10	2.52	2.57
11	Relationship between leading/led	3	2	6	6	15	24	28	40	5	25	3.00	3.46
12	Discussion on the flowchart	4	-	10	22	21	15	12	32	-	20	2.47	3.17
13	Trained staff to meet the user and companion	-	-	14	-	9	21	36	44	-	50	3.10	4.10
14	Reassessment of the cases on hold	-	4	4	30	12	9	48	12	5	15	3.63	2.50
Result Dimension
15	Prioritization of severe cases	1	1	2	4	9	21	44	44	15	35	3.73	3.75
16	Humanization of care	4	2	6	10	-	12	40	40	10	35	3.15	3.53
17	Healthcare team integration	1	2	6	6	6	18	40	52	15	20	3.57	3.50
18	Wait time information	-	5	4	26	9	9	56	20	-	10	3.63	2.50
19	Risk classification	1	3	2	2	3	12	40	40	30	50	4.00	3.82
20	Counter reference	4	2	14	2	15	33	8	36	5	25	2.42	3.50
21	Satisfaction with results of the ARC	3	4	2	6	12	42	32	24	15	5	3.36	2.89

HES	Sum of the WA	Representativeness
HES A
Structure	20.91	Precarious
Process	22.50	Precarious
Result	23.86	Precarious
General Assessment	67.27	Precarious
HES B
Structure	22.59	Precarious
Process	22.50	Precarious
Result	23.39	Precarious
General Assessment	68.48	Precarious

Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Rua Afonso Cavalcanti, 275, Cidade Nova, 20211-110 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brasil, Tel: +55 21 3398-0952 e 3398-0941 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: annaneryrevista@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding Author: Maria Antonia Ramos Costa. E-mail: enfunespar1982@hotmail.com