O uso do medicamento na percepção do usuário do Programa Hiperdia The use of medication in the perception of users Hiperdia Program

O presente artigo discute a questão do acesso aos medicamentos como direito social, a partir da investigação de como o usuário do Hiperdia percebe seu acesso aos medicamentos. Para tanto, aborda o processo de medicalização vivenciado pela sociedade brasileira contemporânea, ressaltando a influência que esse processo exerce sobre o acesso aos medicamentos, comprometendo a concretização do acesso universal e igualitário. Utilizando técnica preconizada pela pesquisa qualitativa, foram realizados grupos focais com os usuários do Hiperdia nas unidades básicas de saúde de Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais. O estudo enfatiza a percepção que esses usuários têm de seus direitos em relação ao acesso aos medicamentos essenciais. Nesse processo, investigam-se suas crenças, saberes, atitudes, dificuldades, medos, dúvidas, anseios com relação ao uso dos medicamentos essenciais, bem como a visão sobre a(s) doença(s) que os acomete(m). Entre os resultados alcançados, evidenciou-se que a maioria dos usuários das unidades básicas de saúde não se considera portador de direitos e que o acesso aos medicamentos como direito social garantido constitucionalmente está longe de ser efetivado no cotidiano do serviço público de saúde brasileiro.<br>This article discusses the question of access to medication as a social right, investigating how users registered in the Hiperdia program perceive their access to medication. To achieve this, the process of "medicalization" experienced by Brazilian society today was assessed, highlighting the influence that this process has on access to medication, prejudicing the achievement of universal and equalitarian access. Using a technique recommended by qualitative research, focal groups with Hiperdia users in the basic health service of Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil, were set up. The survey emphasizes the perception that these users have with respect to their rights related to essential medication. In this process, their beliefs, knowledge, attitudes, difficulties, fears, doubts and anxieties concerning the use of essential medication are investigated, as well as their viewpoints on the disease(s) they suffer from. Among the results obtained, it was revealed that the majority of the users of basic health units do not consider that they have rights and that access to medication as a constitutionally-assured social right is far from being implemented in the Brazilian public health service today

Prospective observational cohort study on grading the severity of postoperative complications in global surgery research

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high- (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7-day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P\u3c0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P\u3c0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P\u3c0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine

Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit: prospective analysis of data from 27 countries

This was an investigator initiated study funded by Nestle Health Sciences through an unrestricted research grant, and by a National Institute for Health Research (UK) Professorship held by RP. The study was sponsored by Queen Mary University of London