11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Validación de un Instrumento para Medir Calidad Percibida por Usuarios de Hospitales de Colombia Translated title: Validating an instrument for measuring the perceived quality of services received by people using hospitals in Colombia

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objetivo Validar un instrumento para medir calidad percibida por usuarios de hospitales del Programa de reestructuración, rediseño y modernización de redes prestadoras de servicios de salud del Ministerio de la Protección Social de Colombia. Método Ante la inexistencia en Colombia de instrumento válido, se siguieron los lineamientos de Sánchez y Echeverri para validar escalas de medición en salud. Resultados Según síntesis conceptual se identificó una estructura de indicadores, dominios y subdominios constituyentes de la percepción de calidad de servicios de salud. Se desarrolló un listado de reactivos con escala de categorización de respuestas que se analizaron según validez de apariencia, constructo, criterio y utilidad así como criterios de sensibilidad y practicidad. Revisiones sucesivas y tres rondas de prueba en campo generaron el PECASUSS, acrónimo dado al instrumento por Percepción de Calidad Según Usuarios de Servicios de Salud. Conclusiones Los lineamientos orientaron eficazmente la validación del instrumento requerido para medir calidad percibida por usuarios de hospitales del Programa.

          Translated abstract

          Objective Validating an instrument for measuring the perceived quality of services received by people using hospitals forming part of the Colombian Ministry of Social Protection's restructuring, redesigning and modernisation programme for health-service providing networks. Methods Sánchez and Echeverri's guidelines for validating health quality measurement scales were followed due to the lack of a valid instrument for doing this in Colombia. Results Conceptual synthesis led to identifying a structure of constituent indicators, domains and sub-domains regarding the perception of health service quality. A list of reactions (having a scale for categorising the replies) was analysed according to the validity of appearance, construct, criteria and utility as criteria for sensitivity and usefulness. Successive revisions and three rounds of field-trials led to producing PECASUSS, an acronym given to the instrument for measuring users' perception of health service quality (Percepción de Calidad Según Usuarios de Servicios de Salud). Conclusions The guidelines effectively orientated the validation of the instrument required for measuring the perceived quality of health services received by people using hospitals forming part of the programme.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Who is at greatest risk for receiving poor-quality health care?

          American adults frequently do not receive recommended health care. The extent to which the quality of health care varies among sociodemographic groups is unknown. We used data from medical records and telephone interviews of a random sample of people living in 12 communities to assess the quality of care received by those who had made at least one visit to a health care provider during the previous two years. We constructed aggregate scores from 439 indicators of the quality of care for 30 chronic and acute conditions and for disease prevention. We estimated the rates at which members of different sociodemographic subgroups received recommended care, with adjustment for the number of chronic and acute conditions, use of health care services, and other sociodemographic characteristics. Overall, participants received 54.9 percent of recommended care. Even after adjustment, there was only moderate variation in quality-of-care scores among sociodemographic subgroups. Women had higher overall scores than men (56.6 percent vs. 52.3 percent, P<0.001), and participants below the age of 31 years had higher scores than those over the age of 64 years (57.5 percent vs. 52.1 percent, P<0.001). Blacks (57.6 percent) and Hispanics (57.5 percent) had slightly higher scores than whites (54.1 percent, P<0.001 for both comparisons). Those with annual household incomes over 50,000 dollars had higher scores than those with incomes of less than 15,000 dollars (56.6 percent vs. 53.1 percent, P<0.001). The differences among sociodemographic subgroups in the observed quality of health care are small in comparison with the gap for each subgroup between observed and desirable quality of health care. Quality-improvement programs that focus solely on reducing disparities among sociodemographic subgroups may miss larger opportunities to improve care. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluation designs for adequacy, plausibility and probability of public health programme performance and impact.

            J Habicht (1999)
            The question of why to evaluate a programme is seldom discussed in the literature. The present paper argues that the answer to this question is essential for choosing an appropriate evaluation design. The discussion is centered on summative evaluations of large-scale programme effectiveness, drawing upon examples from the fields of health and nutrition but the findings may be applicable to other subject areas. The main objective of an evaluation is to influence decisions. How complex and precise the evaluation must be depends on who the decision maker is and on what types of decisions will be taken as a consequence of the findings. Different decision makers demand not only different types of information but also vary in their requirements of how informative and precise the findings must be. Both complex and simple evaluations, however, should be equally rigorous in relating the design to the decisions. Based on the types of decisions that may be taken, a framework is proposed for deciding upon appropriate evaluation designs. Its first axis concerns the indicators of interest, whether these refer to provision or utilization of services, coverage or impact measures. The second axis refers to the type of inference to be made, whether this is a statement of adequacy, plausibility or probability. In addition to the above framework, other factors affect the choice of an evaluation design, including the efficacy of the intervention, the field of knowledge, timing and costs. Regarding the latter, decision makers should be made aware that evaluation costs increase rapidly with complexity so that often a compromise must be reached. Examples are given of how to use the two classification axes, as well as these additional factors, for helping decision makers and evaluators translate the need for evaluation--the why--into the appropriate design--the how.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Percepción de la calidad de la atención de los servicios de salud en México: perspectiva de los usuarios

              Objetivo. Describir la percepción de la calidad de la atención recibida por los usuarios en servicios ambulatorios de salud en México y analizar su relación con algunas características predisponentes y habilitadoras de la población usuaria. Material y métodos. La información analizada parte de la Encuesta Nacional de Salud II de 1994, que levantó información de 3 324 usuarios que acudieron a los servicios de salud en las dos últimas semanas previas a la encuesta. Resultados. Se encontró que 81.2% de los usuarios percibió que la atención recibida fue buena y 18.8% mala. Los principales motivos que definen la calidad como buena fueron: el trato personal (23.2%) y mejoría en salud (11.9%); en tanto que los motivos de mala calidad aludidos fueron: los largos tiempos de espera (23.7%) y la deficiencia en las acciones de revisión y diagnóstico (11.7%). Los que utilizaron servicios de seguridad social perciben 2.6 veces más frecuentemente mala calidad de atención que los que acudieron a servicios privados. Para los usuarios, la calidad está representada por las características del proceso de atención (44.8%), del resultado (21.3%), de la estructura (18.0%), y de la accesibilidad (15.7%). Los motivos más importantes por los cuales los usuarios no regresarían al mismo lugar de atención fueron: no lo atendieron bien (18.2%) y los largos tiempos de espera (11.8%). Conclusiones. Los resultados sugieren profundizar en el conocimiento de la perspectiva poblacional, y determinar la necesidad de implementar en los servicios de salud acciones para la mejoría continua de la calidad de la atención.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                rsap
                Revista de Salud Pública
                Rev. salud pública
                Instituto de Salud Publica, Facultad de Medicina - Universidad Nacional de Colombia (Bogotá, DF, Colombia )
                0124-0064
                July 2008
                : 10
                : 3
                : 443-451
                Affiliations
                [01] Medellín orgnameUniversidad de Antioquia orgdiv1Facultad Nacional de Salud Pública Héctor Abad Gómez Colombia gcabrera@ 123456guajiros.udea.edu.co
                Article
                S0124-00642008000300009 S0124-0064(08)01000309
                3cf0a7f7-e23b-4141-9df5-c05f2667276c

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 03 October 2007
                : 11 June 2008
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 28, Pages: 9
                Product

                SciELO Public Health

                Self URI: Texto completo solamente en formato PDF (ES)
                Categories
                Artículos/Investigación

                hospital,Validation studies,quality of healthcare,calidad de la atención de salud,Percepción

                Comments

                Comment on this article