Estrutura e processo de trabalho referente ao cuidado à criança na Atenção Primária à Saúde no Brasil: estudo ecológico com dados do Programa de Melhoria do Acesso e Qualidade da Atenção Básica 2012-2018

Danilo Marcelo Araújo dos Santos; Cláudia Maria Coelho Alves; Thiago Augusto Hernandes Rocha; Rejane Christine de Sousa Queiroz; Núbia Cristina da Silva; Érika Bárbara Abreu Fonseca Thomaz

doi:10.1590/s1679-49742021000100012

##article.authors##

Danilo Marcelo Araújo dos Santos Universidade Federal do Maranhão https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7890-438X
Cláudia Maria Coelho Alves Universidade Federal do Maranhão https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4705-4914
Thiago Augusto Hernandes Rocha Ministério da Saúde https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6262-3276
Rejane Christine de Sousa Queiroz Universidade Federal do Maranhão https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4019-2011
Núbia Cristina da Silva Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0809-2152
Érika Bárbara Abreu Fonseca Thomaz Ministério da Saúde https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4156-4067

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/s1679-49742021000100012

Keywords:

Primary Health Care, Health Evaluation, Indicators of Health Services, Child Health, Ecological Studies

Abstract

Objective: To asses the structure of basic health units (UBS) and the work process of primary care teams in child care in Brazil. Methods: Ecological study with data from the three cycles of the Program for Improving Access and Quality in Primary Care 2012-2018, by federated unit and regions. Seven structural and thirteen procedural indicators were analyzed. The t test was used to compare means of the indicators between regions. Results: 85,845 teams participated in the three cycles of the program, grouped into 68,320 UBS. In the last evaluation cycle (2017-2018), they showed higher percentages of adequacy among the structural indicators: unit functioning (99%), equipment/materials (82%), vaccines (74%) and medication dispensing (70%). Discovered population (68%) and scheduling for specialists (52%) corresponded to the lowest percentages of adequacy of process indicators. Conclusion: The processe indicators showed better adjustments than the structural indicators.