145.10 Profile of the demand assisted in basic units in the south and northeast regions of Brazil: Differences by care model

Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sadrivaan A and B (The Hilton Istanbul Hotel )
Alessander Osorio, SYSTEM, ANALIST Federal University of Pelotas, Brazil
Elaine Tomasi Universidade Católica de Pelotas, Brazil
Luiz A. Facchini Federal University of Pelotas, Brazil
Roberto Piccini Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Brazil
Elaine Thumé Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Brazil
Denise Silveira Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Brazil
Fernando Vinholes Siqueira Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Brazil
Aliteia S. Dilelio Federal University of Pelotas, Brazil
Introduction: Studies of demand are useful to identify the sociodemographic and morbidity profile of users of basic units of health care (BUHC). Given the logistic facility, they are valuable to administrators and professionals plan and make adjustments in labor processes and improve population assistance. With the consolidation of Family Health Strategy (FHS), it is important to know whether this model determines a different demand to BUHC. Objective: Describe assistances provided in BUHC of two regions of the country and investigate differences by care model (FHS and Traditional). Methods: Transversal study with assistances provided in a work day of 236 BUHC of 41 cities with over 100 thousand inhabitants of seven states of the South and Northeast regions. Age, schooling and gender, type of procedure and the professional have been informed by the Ambulatory Care Assistance Application (ACAA) of SIA/SUS with register and process in PACOTAPS application. The analysis has been stratified by region. Results: From 26,019 assistances, 52% were from the South and 48% from the Northeast. One-third were accomplished in Traditional BUHC and 67% in FHS. Women between 15-49 were the ones who received more assistance (36%) and 30% of the assistances were children and elderly people. In the South, Traditional BUHC assisted proportionally more people with higher level of education than BUHC of FHS (p=0,035). Both South and Northeast regions Traditional BUHC registered significantly more procedures of immunization, nursing basic assistance and medical appointments and the proportion of visiting was twice higher in BUHC of FHS (p=0,000). Conclusions: Differences found indicate more access and equality in BUHC of FHS, besides reflecting typical characteristics of the models. In the South region, the demand of FHS has worse social status than in Traditional BUHC. In the Northeast region, differences erase one another.

Learning Objectives: Describe assistances provided in BUHC of two regions of the country and investigate differences by care model (FHS and Traditional).

Sub-Theme: Revisiting primary health care in the 21st century