Evaluation of the care offered by a teaching outpatient clinic in Manaus - AM and the approach to patient rights
Unified Health System; Right to Health; Patients' Rights
The Health Users' Rights Booklet establishes, fundamental guidelines to ensure humanized, respectful, and transparent care, guaranteeing access to information and appropriate healthcare. This study aimed to analyze the care provided to users of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) in the Pulmonology and Hepatology outpatient clinics at Araújo Lima Outpatient Center, based on the patient rights established by the Charter of Health Users' Rights. A cross-sectional, descriptive study with a quantitative approach was conducted, divided into two stages: validation of the data collection instrument through a Consensus Conference and the application of the validated questionnaire. The research was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte. Initially, a Logic Model was developed to structure the evaluated dimensions, aligned with the principles of the Charter, resulting in the construction of a matrix of criteria that formed the basis for the questionnaire, composed of three dimensions and their subdimensions. The validation process occurred in three stages: asynchronous individual evaluation and two synchronous meetings via Google Meet, with the participation of experts in public health, bioethics, patient rights, and palliative care. After applying the instrument to 178 users, items with more than 40% non-response were excluded, resulting in a total of 29 validated criteria. The questionnaire is divided into two sections: the first addresses the participants' demographic and socioeconomic conditions; the second evaluates the conditions of care provided, based on the Charter. Results from the first section reveal an average age of 56 years, a predominance of women (70%), low educational level (34.8%), and low income (45.8% earning less than the minimum wage), with 83.1% identifying as Black or Indigenous, mainly mixed-race (75%). In the second section, results show that 96% of users are addressed by name, 92.1% know the physician responsible for their care, and 96.6% feel respected. Preservation of privacy was acknowledged by 88.2% of participants. Significantly, a high rate of non-discrimination was observed, exceeding 90%, highlighting care marked by respect and equity. However, only 20.8% identified other healthcare professionals, and 63.5% reported waiting more than 30 minutes. Regarding patient rights, 62.9% were not informed about confidentiality with family members, and 36% were unaware of the right to have a companion. On the other hand, 89.9% received guidance on care, and 78.7% were informed about the purpose of exams, although only 41% were informed about potential risks. Most users understood prescriptions (64%) and felt comfortable asking questions (85.4%), but 70.8% were unaware of the right to access their medical records, and 44.4% were unaware they could request written reports. It is concluded that, despite progress in respect and interpersonal communication, significant gaps remain in ensuring users' rights, especially regarding information, identification of professionals, and patient autonomy.