Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

País/Región como asunto
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Rev. saúde pública ; 45(4): 714-721, ago. 2011. tab
Artículo en Portugués | LILACS | ID: lil-593387

RESUMEN

OBJETIVO: Caracterizar os principais elementos processuais, médico-científicos e sanitários que respaldam as decisões das demandas judiciais individuais por medicamentos consideradas essenciais. MÉTODOS: Estudo descritivo retrospectivo com base em 27 ações julgadas em 2ª instância no Estado do Rio de Janeiro em 2006. Os processos originais foram solicitados ao Arquivo Central do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, fotografados e analisados na íntegra. RESULTADOS: Todas as ações incluíram prescrição e atestado médicos. As prescrições estavam em desacordo com a legislação. Não houve perícia médica em nenhuma das ações e em 7,4 por cento constavam exames complementares. Apesar da escassa informação médica contida nos autos, todos os pedidos foram deferidos. CONCLUSÕES: O acolhimento de demandas judiciais carentes de subsídios clínicos e diagnósticos traz embaraços de ordem gerencial e sanitária ao sistema de saúde, pois comprometem a assistência farmacêutica regular e fomentam o uso irracional de medicamentos.


OBJECTIVE: To characterize the main medical, scientific and health-related procedural elements upon which decisions are made in individual lawsuits demanding medicines that are considered essential to the Court of Justice. METHODS: Retrospective descriptive study based on 27 cases ruled on by the Court of Appeals in Rio de Janeiro, Southeastern Brazil, in 2006. The original proceedings were solicited from the Central Archive of the Court of Justice of the State of Rio de Janeiro and were photographed and analyzed in full. RESULTS: Prescriptions and medical certificates were present in 100 percent of the lawsuits. All prescriptions lacked conformity to legislation. No expert medical reports were added, and only 7.4 percent of the lawsuits presented complementary examinations. In spite of the scarcity of medical information present in the records, all of the demands were granted. CONCLUSIONS: The admission of judicial demands devoid of clinical and diagnostic substantiation results in managerial and health-related constraints on the health system. Besides creating havoc in standard pharmaceutical services, badly justified medicine demands may compromise rational drug use.


OBJETIVO: Caracterizar los principales elementos procesales, medico-científicos y sanitarios que respaldan las decisiones de las demandas judiciales individuales por medicamentos consideradas esenciales. MÉTODOS: Estudio descriptivo retrospectivo con base en 27 acciones juzgadas en 2ª instancia en el estado de Rio de Janeiro, Sureste de Brasil, en 2006. Los procesos originales fueron solicitados al Archivo Central del Tribunal de Justicia del Estado de Rio de Janeiro, fotografiados y analizados de forma íntegra. RESULTADOS: Todas las acciones incluyeron prescripción y atestados médicos. Las prescripciones estaban en desacuerdo con la legislación. No hubo pericia médica en ninguna de las acciones y en 7,4 por ciento constaban exámenes complementarios. A pesar de la escasa información médica contenida en los autos, todos los pedidos fueron deferidos. CONCLUSIONES: El acogimiento de demandas judiciales carentes de subsidios clínicos y diagnósticos trae complicaciones de tipo gerencial y sanitaria al sistema de salud, ya que comprometen la asistencia farmacéutica regular y fomentan el uso irracional de medicamentos.


Asunto(s)
Humanos , Medicamentos Esenciales/provisión & distribución , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Sistemas de Medicación , Brasil , Prescripciones de Medicamentos , Rol Judicial , Programas Nacionales de Salud , Derechos del Paciente , Sector Público , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Tiempo
2.
Rev Saude Publica ; 45(4): 714-21, 2011 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés, Portugués | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21739079

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the main medical, scientific and health-related procedural elements upon which decisions are made in individual lawsuits demanding medicines that are considered essential to the Court of Justice. METHODS: Retrospective descriptive study based on 27 cases ruled on by the Court of Appeals in Rio de Janeiro, Southeastern Brazil, in 2006. The original proceedings were solicited from the Central Archive of the Court of Justice of the State of Rio de Janeiro and were photographed and analyzed in full. RESULTS: Prescriptions and medical certificates were present in 100% of the lawsuits. All prescriptions lacked conformity to legislation. No expert medical reports were added, and only 7.4% of the lawsuits presented complementary examinations. In spite of the scarcity of medical information present in the records, all of the demands were granted. CONCLUSIONS: The admission of judicial demands devoid of clinical and diagnostic substantiation results in managerial and health-related constraints on the health system. Besides creating havoc in standard pharmaceutical services, badly justified medicine demands may compromise rational drug use.


Asunto(s)
Medicamentos Esenciales/provisión & distribución , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Sistemas de Medicación/legislación & jurisprudencia , Brasil , Prescripciones de Medicamentos , Humanos , Rol Judicial , Programas Nacionales de Salud , Derechos del Paciente/legislación & jurisprudencia , Sector Público , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Tiempo
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA