Instrumentos e dimensões para avaliação da qualidade do cuidado à pessoa com estomia: revisão de escopo

Larissa Carvalho de Castro; Laryssa Barbosa Custodio; Laura Oliveira Silva; Victoria Correa Nunes; Juliano Carvalho de Castro; Juliano Teixeira Moraes

doi:10.36517/2175-6783.20252695922

Autores/as

Larissa Carvalho de Castro Universidade Federal de São João Del Rei https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8676-1350
Laryssa Barbosa Custodio Universidade Federal de São João Del Rei https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1288-5706
Laura Oliveira Silva Universidade Federal de São João Del Rei https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9156-0718
Victoria Correa Nunes Universidade Federal de São João Del Rei https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9751-2031
Juliano Carvalho de Castro Universidade Federal de São João Del Rei https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6003-0275
Juliano Teixeira Moraes Universidade Federal de São João Del Rei https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1109-962X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36517/2175-6783.20252695922

Palabras clave:

Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde; Qualidade, Acesso e Avaliação da Assistência à Saúde; Pessoas com Deficiência; Estomia.

Resumen

Objetivo: identificar instrumentos para avaliar a qualidade da assistência a pessoas com ostomia. Métodos: Trata-se de uma revisão exploratória baseada no método do Instituto Joanna Briggs. A questão de investigação foi elaborada a partir da estratégia participante, conceito e contexto, e a busca foi realizada em janeiro de 2025. Resultados: El estudio abarcó ocho bases de datos y literatura gris. Se identificar 5178 estudos, de los cuales se inclui 16. Entre os instrumentos identificados para avaliar a qualidade da atenção se encontram: Calidad de la atención y el apoyo, Qualidade do serviço, Qualidade da atenção desde a perspectiva do paciente, La qualidade do apoio à atenção e Escala de qualidade da atenção. Conclusão: A qualidade da atenção sanitária é um conceito complexo que depende da percepção do paciente como indicador central. O uso de instrumentos de avaliação da satisfação permite que os serviços incorporem as necessidades e expectativas dos pacientes, promovendo uma atenção mais humanizada, individualizada e eficaz. Contribuições para a prática: A incorporação desses instrumentos permite identificar as deficiências na assistência e adotar práticas integradas centradas no paciente, que garantem uma atenção qualificada, humanizada e alinhada com as necessidades e expectativas reais dos pacientes.

Descargas

Los datos de descarga aún no están disponibles.

Referencias

1. Mamić M, Vidic H, Jovanović T, Galić S, Jelincic I, Mikšić Š, et al. Croatian translation and validation of the Patient Satisfaction with Nursing Care Quality Questionnaire (PSNCQQ). Healthcare. 2024;12(9):888. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12090888

2. Aker FZ, Karazeybek E. Relationship between perceived social support and stoma selfefficacy in permanent colostomy patients: a correlational study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2025;31(1):e14117. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14117

3. BurgessStocks J, Gleba J, Lawrence K, Mueller S. Ostomy and continent diversion patient bill of rights. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2022;49(3):25160. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000000876

4. Ministério da Saúde (BR). Portaria nº 400 de 16 de novembro de 2009. Estabelece diretrizes nacionais para a atenção à saúde das pessoas ostomizadas no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) [Internet]. 2009 [cited Apr 21, 2025]. Available from: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/sas/2009/prt0400_16_11_2009.html

5. Flach DMAM, Oliveira LGD, Cardoso GCP, Andrade M, Ribeiro WA. Health evaluation: health assessment for people with ostomies. Rev Bras Enferm. 2020;73(4):e20180789. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034716720180789

6. Bandeira LR, Kolankiewicz AC, Alievi MF, Trindade LF, Loro MM. Fragmented comprehensive health care for ostomized person in the health care network. Esc Anna Nery . 2020;24(3):e20190297. doi:https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-9465-EAN-2019-0297

7. Moayed MS, Khalili R, Ebadi A, Parandeh A. Factors determining the quality of health services provided to COVID19 patients from the perspective of healthcare providers: based on the Donabedian model. Front Public Health. 2022;10:967431. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.967431

8. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). 2019 National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report [Internet]. 2020 [cited May 10, 2025]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK579357/

9. Faria SRG, Oliveira VC, Cortez DN, Borges EL, Moraes JT. Assement of the degree of compliance of health care services for people with stoma. Saúde Coletiva (Barueri). 2023;13(88):1324766. doi:https://doi.org/10.36489/saudecoletiva.2023v13i88p1324713266

10. Bellio E, Buccoliero L. Main factors affecting perceived quality in healthcare: a patient perspective approach. TQM J. 2021;33(7):176-92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM1120200274

11. Moya D, Guilabert M, Manzanera R, Gálvez G, Torres M, López-Pineda A, et al. Differences in perception of healthcare management between patients and professionals. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(5):3842. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20053842

12. Alenezi A, Kimpton A, McGrath I, Livesay K. Confidence, skills and barriers to ostomy patient care by nursing staff in Saudi Arabia. Nurs Forum. 2022;57(3):40311. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12701

13. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

14. Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI manual for evidence synthesis [Internet]. 2024 [cited May 10, 2025]. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global

15. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s1364301603844

16. Bowles TM, Moses C, PerryWoodford ZL. The voice of ostomates: an exploration of stoma care in England. Br J Nurs. 2022;31(16). doi: https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2022.31.16.S4

17. Houston N, Chok H, Luck L. Stomal therapy service evaluation: how well are we supporting our patients? J Stomal Ther Aust. 2021;41(2):106. doi: https://doi.org/10.33235/jsta.41.2.1016

18. Dias TEC, Friche AAL, Lemos SMA. Quality of Care Scale instrument applied to care network users for the person with disabilities: a psychometric analysis. Audiol Commun Res. 2020;25:e2256. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/2317643120192256

19. Romão M, Figueira D, Galante H, Guerreiro J, Romano S. Who are the ostomy patients and caregivers attending Portuguese community pharmacies? A crosssectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):914. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913020057657

20. Swords C, Manji A, Ward E, Arora A. A pilot study on the provision of tracheostomy healthcare and patient engagement in quality improvement measures: a global perspective. J Laryngol Otol. 2018;132(12):10936. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022215118002177

21. Dias TEC, Friche AAL, Lemos SMA. Perception regarding the quality of care of care network for people with disabilities. CoDAS. 2019;31(5): e2018102. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/23171782/20192018102

22. Morris MA, Lagu T, MaraghBass A, Liesinger J, Griffin JM. Development of patientcentered disability status questions to address equity in care. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2017;43(12):64250. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.06.011

23. Vries McClintock HFV, Barg FK, Katz SP, Stineman MG, Krueger A, Colletti PM, et al. Health care experiences and perceptions among people with and without disabilities. Disabil Health J. 2016;9(1):74-82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2015.08.007

24. Zheng QL, Tian Q, Hao C, Gu J, Lucas-Carrasco R, Tao JT, et al. The role of quality of care and attitude towards disability in the relationship between severity of disability and quality of life: findings from a crosssectional survey among people with physical disability in China. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):25. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/147775251225

25. Bredemeier J, AgranoniK M, Perez TS, Fleck MP. Brazilian version of the Quality of Care Scale: the perspective of people with disabilities. Rev Saúde Pública. 2014;48(4):58393. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S00348910.2014048005056

26. Mattevi BS, Bredemeier J, Fam C, Fleck MP. Quality of care, quality of life, and attitudes toward disabilities: perspectives from a qualitative focus group study in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Rev Panam Salud Publica [Internet]. 2012 [cited Aug 13, 2025];31(3):188-96. Avalaible from: https://www.scielosp.org/article/rpsp/2012.v31n3/188-196/en/

27. Lucas-Carrasco R, Eser E, Hao Y, McPherson KM, Green A, Kullmann L. The Quality of Care and Support (QOCS) for people with disability scale: development and psychometric properties. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32(3):1212-22. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2010.12.030

28. Shin J, Moon S. Quality of care and role of health insurance among nonelderly women with disabilities. Womens Health Issues. 2008;18(4):23848. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2008.04.005

29. O’Reilly P. Involving service users in defining and evaluating the service quality of a disability service. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2007;20(2):116-29. doi: https://10.1108/09526860710731816

30. Persson E, Larsson BW. Quality of care after ostomy surgery: a perspective study of patients. Ostomy Wound Manage [Internet]. 2005 [cited Aug 13, 2025];51(8):408. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16234575/

31. Persson E, Gustavsson B, Hellström A, Lappas G, Hultén L. Ostomy patients’ perceptions of quality of care. J Adv Nurs. 2005;49(1):518. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652648.2004.03263.x

32. Jonkisz A, Karniej P, Krasowska D. The Servqual method as an assessment tool of the quality of medical services in selected Asian countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(13):7831. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137831

33. Ndlovu S. Local nurseled outpatient followup pathway to identify and meet the needs of ostomates: a service evaluation. Gastrointest Nurs. 2023;21(10):2835. doi: http://doi.org/10.12968/gasn.2024.21.10.28

34. Stone EM, Bonsignore S, Crystal S, Samples H. Disabled patients’ experiences of healthcare services in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. Health Serv Res. 2025;60(4):e14598. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/14756773

35. Hannawa AF, Wu AW, Kolyada A, Potemkina A, Donaldson LJ. The aspects of healthcare quality that are important to health professionals and patients: a qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;105(6):1561-70. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.10.016

36. Mata ÁNS, Azevedo KPM, Braga LP, Medeiros GCBS, Oliveira Segundo VH, Bezerra INM, et al. Training in communication skills for selfefficacy of health professionals: a systematic review. Hum Resour Health. 2021;19(1):30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960021005743

37. Hashemi G, Wickenden M, Bright T, Kuper H. Barriers to accessing primary healthcare services for people with disabilities in low and middleincome countries, a metasynthesis of qualitative studies. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;44(8):1207-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2020.1817984