The Protagonism of the Brazilian Health Regulatory System in the Evolution of Patient Safety in the Country: History, Dilemmas, and Current Challenges.

OBJECTIVE: This article aims to identify and analyze the legal and regulatory frameworks with an interface with patient safety, considering the historical path of the patient safety policy in Brazil. METHODS: This is a historical review based on the relevant literature to the topic such as papers, legislation, and official documents with an interface with public health policies from 1988 to 2019. We also performed a documentary search to include data from the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) such as normative and nonnormative regulatory instruments. After organizing the data, the process of content analysis was performed. RESULTS: We debated initially the historical aspects of sanitary surveillance of health services in addition to main actions taken by the Brazilian Health Regulatory System, which includes sanitary regulation and patient safety challenges. We identified a diversity of regulations published by ANVISA in the past decade related to patient safety, in addiction to sanitary actions. These initiatives culminated in the establishment of the National Patient Safety Program in 2013, followed by other health improvements, such as surveillance, incidents monitoring, and safe practices self-assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The regulation and sanitary actions directed to patient safety in Brazil have increased after the creation of ANVISA. In the face of this activities, the social role played by the Brazilian Health Regulatory System toward the advancement in the field of risk minimization in health services can be highlighted as a protagonist in the process of promoting patient safety.

WHO Safety Surgical Checklist implementation evaluation in public hospitals in the Brazilian Federal District.

The World Health Organization (WHO) created the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist to prevent adverse events in operating rooms. The aim of this study was to analyze WHO checklist implementation in three operating rooms of public hospitals in the Brazilian Federal District. A prospective cross-sectional study was performed with pre- (Period I) and post (Period II)-checklist intervention evaluations. A total of 1141 patients and 1052 patients were studied in Periods I and II for a total of 2193 patients. Period I took place from December 2012 to March 2013, and Period II took place from April 2013 to August 2014. Regarding the pre-operatory items, most surgeries were classified as clean-contaminated in both phases, and team attire improved from 19.2% to 71.0% in Period II. Regarding checklist adherence in Period II, "Patient identification" significantly improved in the stage "Before induction of anesthesia". "Allergy verification", "Airway obstruction verification", and "Risk of blood loss assessment" had low adherence in all three hospitals. The items in the stage "Before surgical incision" showed greater than 90.0% adherence with the exception of "Anticipated critical events: Anesthesia team review" (86.7%) and "Essential imaging display" (80.0%). Low adherence was noted in "Instrument counts" and "Equipment problems" in the stage "Before patient leaves operating room". Complications and deaths were low in both periods. Despite the variability in checklist item compliance in the surveyed hospitals, WHO checklist implementation as an intervention tool showed good adherence to the majority of the items on the list. Nevertheless, motivation to use the instrument by the surgical team with the intent of improving surgical patient safety continues to be crucial.

National prevalence survey in Brazil to evaluate the quality of microbiology laboratories: the importance of defining priorities to allocate limited resources.

This report describes a survey of microbiology laboratories (n = 467) serving Brazilian hospitals with ≥10 intensive care beds and/or involved in the government health care adverse event reporting system. Coordinators were interviewed and laboratories classified as follows: Level 0 (no minimal functioning conditions-85.4% of laboratories); Level 1 (minimal functioning conditions but inadequate execution of basic routine-6.7%); Level 2 (minimal functioning conditions and adequate execution of basic routine but no adequate procedures for quality control-5.8%); Level 3 (minimal functioning conditions, adequate execution of basic routine, and adequate procedures for quality control, but no direct communication with the infection control department-0.9%); Level 4 (minimal functioning conditions, adequate execution of basic routine, adequate procedures for quality control, and direct communication with infection control, but no available advanced resources-none); and Level 5 (minimal functioning conditions, adequate execution of basic routine, adequate procedures for quality control, direct communication with infection control, and available advanced resources-0.9%). Twelve laboratories did not perform Ziehl-Neelsen staining; 271 did not have safety cabinets; and >30% without safety cabinets had automated systems. Low quality was associated with serving hospitals not participating in government adverse-event program; private hospitals; nonteaching hospitals; and those outside state capitals. Results may reflect what occurs in many other countries where defining priorities is important due to limited resources.

National prevalence survey in Brazil to evaluate the quality of microbiology laboratories: the importance of defining priorities to allocate limited resources / Encuesta de prevalencia nacional para evaluar la calidad de los laboratorios de microbiología en el Brasil: importancia de la definición de prioridades para asignar recursos limitados

This report describes a survey of microbiology laboratories (n = 467) serving Brazilian hospitals with >10 intensive care beds and/or involved in the government health care adverse event reporting system. Coordinators were interviewed and laboratories classified as follows: Level 0 (no minimal functioning conditions-85.4% of laboratories); Level 1 (minimal functioning conditions but inadequate execution of basic routine-6.7%); Level 2 (minimal functioning conditions and adequate execution of basic routine but no adequate procedures for quality control-5.8%); Level 3 (minimal functioning conditions, adequate execution of basic routine, and adequate procedures for quality control, but no direct communication with the infection control department-0.9%); Level 4 (minimal functioning conditions, adequate execution of basic routine, adequate procedures for quality control, and direct communication with infection control, but no available advanced resources-none); and Level 5 (minimal functioning conditions, adequate execution of basic routine, adequate procedures for quality control, direct communication with infection control, and available advanced resources-0.9%). Twelve laboratories did not perform Ziehl-Neelsen staining; 271 did not have safety cabinets; and >30% without safety cabinets had automated systems. Low quality was associated with serving hospitals not participating in government adverse-event program; private hospitals; nonteaching hospitals; and those outside state capitals. Results may reflect what occurs in many other countries where defining priorities is important due to limited resources.

Este artículo describe una encuesta realizada en Brasil en laboratorios de microbiología (n = 467) que prestaban servicio a hospitales que contaban al menos con 10 camas de cuidados intensivos. Se entrevistó a los coordinadores y los laboratorios se clasificaron de la siguiente manera: nivel 0 (sin condiciones de funcionamiento mínimas: 85,4% de los laboratorios), nivel 1 (condiciones de funcionamiento mínimas pero ejecución inadecuada del trabajo habitual básico: 6,7%), nivel 2 (condiciones de funcionamiento mínimas y ejecución adecuada del trabajo habitual básico, pero sin procedimientos de control de calidad apropiados: 5,8%), nivel 3 (condiciones de funcionamiento mínimas, ejecución adecuada del trabajo habitual básico y procedimientos de control de calidad apropiados, pero sin comunicación directa con el departamento de control de infecciones: 0,9%), nivel 4 (condiciones de funcionamiento mínimas, ejecución adecuada del trabajo habitual básico, procedimientos de control de calidad apropiados y comunicación directa con el departamento de control de infecciones, pero sin recursos avanzados disponibles: ningún laboratorio) y nivel 5 (condiciones de funcionamiento mínimas, ejecución adecuada del trabajo habitual básico, procedimientos de control de calidad apropiados, comunicación directa con el departamento de control de infecciones y recursos avanzados disponibles: 0,9%). Doce laboratorios no realizaban la tinción de Ziehl-Neelsen, 271 no contaban con cámaras de seguridad biológica, y más de 30% de los laboratorios que carecían de cámaras de seguridad biológica tenían sistemas automatizados. La escasa calidad se asoció a la falta de participación en el programa gubernamental de notificación de acontecimientos adversos, a los hospitales privados, a los hospitales no docentes y a la ubicación de los hospitales fuera de las capitales de los estados. Los resultados pueden reflejar lo que ocurre en muchos otros países con recursos limitados, donde es importante definir las prioridades.