Patients records, what are they used for?: representation of capsis´ team coordinators about the value and use of patients records

Authors

  • Alberto Olavo Advincula Reis Laboratório de Saúde Mental Coletiva; grupo de pesquisa CNPq
  • Caroline Dombi-Barbosa LASAMEC
  • Moacyr Miniussi Bertolino Neto LASAMEC
  • Maria Margarida Licursi Prates LASAMEC
  • Patrícia Santos de Souza Delfini Universidade de São Paulo; Faculdade de Saúde Pública; Departamento de Saúde Materno-Infantil
  • Felipe Lessa Fonseca LASAMEC
  • Ariana Queiroz de Oliveira Universidade Federal de São Paulo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.19926

Keywords:

CAPSi, patients records, children^i2^sadolesc, mental health

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: the article aims to understand how the coordinators of Psychosocial Care Centres for Children and Adolescents (CAPSi) from the state of São Paulo perceive the value and use of patients records. Nowadays, patients records obey clear ethical principles. There are several studies that collect data from patients records and others proposed to provide their improvement, because they are considered important tools in health system. However, it is important to ask if these tools are valuable and if their use is perceived by mental health teams in their everyday practices. The article describes and analyses the perception of CAPSi´s coordinators about the use of records for teams and patients. METHOD: One coordinator from each of the 19 CAPSi from the state of São Paulo were interviewed. The answers were analysed according to the classic procedures of content analysis. RESULTS: the records are perceived as valuable work tools and they are considered important as intervention and clinical follow-up tools. Their relevance is also related as a tool that makes the articulation and communication among workers from CAPSi possible. On the other hand, the use they should have for patients is not perceived. The contradiction between levels of importance of the tool for workers and patients may point to the importance of a discussion about the mental health clinic practiced in CAPSi.

References

Goffman E. Manicômios, prisões e conventos. São Paulo: Ed. Perspectiva; 1974.

Goffman E. A representação do Eu na vida cotidiana. Petrópolis: Ed. Vozes; 1975.

Goffman E. Estigma. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. Zahar; 1975.

Laing D. Psiquiatria e Antipsiquitria. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1967.

Cooper RD. The divided Self. London: Harmondsworth;1960.

Mannoni M. Le Psychiatre, son “fou” etla psychanalyse. Paris: Ed. Du Seuil; 1970.

Código de Ética Médico. Acesso em 02/03/2001. Online. Disponível naInternet: http://www.cfm.org.br/codetic.htm.

Costa CGA. Desenvolvimento e avaliação tecnológica de um sistema de prontuário eletrônico do paciente, baseado nos paradigmas da World Wide Web e da Engenharia de Software[dissertação de mestrado]. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas; 2001.

Vasconcellos MM, Gribel EB, Moraes IHS. Registros em saúde: avaliação da qualidade do prontuário do paciente na atenção básica. Rio de Janeiro. Cadernos Saúde Pública. 2008;24 (1Supl):173-182.

Novaes HMD. Pesquisa em, sobre e para os serviços de saúde: panorama internacional e questões para a pesquisa em saúde no Brasil. Cad. Saúde Publica Rio de Janeiro. 2004;20(2 Supl): 147-157.

Conselho Regional de Medicina do Distrito Federal. Prontuário médico do paciente: guia para uso prático/Conselho Regional de Medicina do Distrito Federal. Brasília: Conselho Regional de Medicina, 2006.

Bardin L. Análise de Conteúdo. Lisboa:Ed.70; 1979.

Creswell JW. Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.Thousand Oaks, USA; London, UK; New Delhi, India: Sage Publications; 1994.

Franco MLPB. Análise do Conteúdo. Brasília: Plano editorial; 2004.

Moreno DMFC, Reis AOA. O momento da comunicação do resultado sorológico para o HIV sob a ótica winnicottiana. Pulsional Rev de Psicanálise. 2002;156:20-5.

Downloads

Published

2009-12-01

Issue

Vol. 19 No. 3 (2009)

Section

Original Research

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis