Search

Não recebi financiamento In view of the current scenario of public health in Brazil, there is an increase in health costs, largely due to the increase in life expectancy and the advancement of technology, contrasting with often insufficient and limited resources. Given this reality, accurately estimating costs is paramount in the search for efficiency and transparency. The identification and allocation of costs to their respective cost centers are of great relevance to managers, who can view the organization's ability to meet the demand presented. This study aimed to map and classify the costs of the Health School Unit (USE) of the Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar) to the productive, administrative and intermediate cost centers, as directed by the Ministry of Health. The study can be classified as to the objective as exploratory in the form of a case study. As for the approach, qualitative research was carried out, with data collection, application of interviews, document analysis. The research involved surveying costs at the Unit from January 2018 to December 2019, segregating direct and indirect costs, determining cost centers, allocating costs to administrative, productive and intermediate cost centers, followed by direct allocation of costs to the final productive cost centers. Finally, an analysis of the information obtained was performed. It was found that the cost with the highest representation in percentage terms in the Unit was that of personnel, representing 80% in 2018 and 79% in 2019 of the Unit's total costs, followed by costs with third party services and legal entities with 16% in 2018 and 18% in 2019. Costs with consumables, on the other hand, have little representation in percentage terms, being 1.15 % in 2018 and 0.86% in 2019. Depreciation costs correspond to 2% of the Unit's total costs in 2018 and 3% of costs in 2019. The cost per procedure is higher for months with less number of visits and less with the highest number of services, since the organization has mostly fixed costs. The productive cost center had the highest cost in the years 2018 and 2019, being 58% and 56%, respectively, followed by the intermediate cost center with 23% in 2018 and 21% in 2019. Finally, the cost center administrative represented 18% in 2018 and 21% in 2019. As for the final productive cost centers, the one with the highest cost was Physiotherapy and the one with the lowest cost was Family Medicine in 2018 and General Medicine in 2019. The data presented demonstrate important subsidies for decision making, offering clear managerial information regarding the allocation of costs in the Unit, also allowing greater transparency of expenses. Frente ao atual cenário da saúde pública no Brasil observa-se um crescimento dos custos com saúde, consequência em sua grande parte, do aumento da expectativa de vida e do avanço da tecnologia, contrastando com recursos muitas vezes insuficientes e limitados. Diante dessa realidade, estimar com precisão os custos é primordial na busca por eficiência e transparência. A identificação e alocação dos custos aos seus respectivos centros de custo são de grande relevância aos gestores, que podem visualizar a capacidade de atendimento da organização diante da demanda apresentada. Este estudo teve como objetivo mapear e classificar os custos da Unidade Saúde Escola (USE) da Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar) aos centros de custo produtivo, administrativo e intermediário, conforme orientação do Ministério da Saúde. O estudo pode ser classificado quanto ao objetivo como exploratório na forma de estudo de caso. Quanto a abordagem foi realizada pesquisa qualitativa, com coleta de dados, aplicação de entrevistas, análise documental. A pesquisa envolveu o levantamento dos custos na Unidade no período de janeiro de 2018 a dezembro de 2019, segregação dos custos diretos e indiretos, determinação dos centros de custo, alocação dos custos aos centros de custo administrativo, produtivo e intermediário, seguido da alocação direta dos custos aos centros de custo produtivos finais. Por fim, foi realizada análise das informações obtidas. Verificou-se que o custo com maior representatividade em termos percentuais na Unidade foi o de pessoal, representando 80% em 2018 e 79% em 2019 dos custos totais da Unidade, seguido dos custos com serviços de terceiros e de pessoa jurídica com 16% em 2018 e 18% em 2019. Já os custos com material de consumo possuem pouca representatividade em termos percentuais, sendo de 1,15% em 2018 e de 0,86% em 2019. Os custos com depreciação correspondem a 2% dos custos totais da Unidade em 2018 e 3% dos custos em 2019. O custo por procedimento é maior para meses com menor número de atendimentos e menor com maior número de atendimentos, visto que a organização possui em sua maioria custos fixos. O centro de custo produtivo obteve o maior custo nos anos de 2018 e de 2019, sendo de 58% e 56%, respectivamente, seguido do centro de custo intermediário com 23% em 2018 e 21% em 2019. Por fim o centro de custo administrativo representou 18% em 2018 e 21% em 2019. Quanto aos centros de custo produtivos finais, o com o maior custo foi o de Fisioterapia e de menor custo o de Medicina da Família em 2018 e de Medicina Clínica Geral em 2019. Os dados apresentados demonstram ser importantes subsídios para a tomada de decisão, oferecendo informações gerenciais claras quanto a alocação dos custos na Unidade, possibilitando também uma maior transparência dos gastos.

Introduction: There is a reliable evidence that personnel working in a variety of settings beyond mainstream mental health services can make an important contribution to the prevention of mental health problems. Aim: To assess the ability of personnel in different sectors including schools, school health unit and Primary Health Care (PHC) centers to recognize the risks and signs of deteriorating mental health among vulnerable people. The roles played by these personnel in the area of mental health were also defined. Methods: A descriptive approach was used to carry out this study in different service agencies located in Abha region. These included female secondary schools, female school health units and all PHC centers. Questionnaires were mailed to teachers, physicians and nurses. The questionnaires contained queries about warning signs of poor mental health and high-risk groups for mental disorders. Results: It was shown that 50% of school teachers in the sample were good at picking up signs of mental distress while others felt that they did not have the skills in this field nor was it their role to do so. The majority of physicians and nurses (66.03%) in school health unit and PHC centers identify family problems as predictor of mental disorders. From the stand point of the primary care provided by health centers, early diagnosis of cases and provision of treatment were considered unimportant compared to the role of case referral as stated by 15.38% and 53.84% of workers, respectively. Recommendations: It is recommended that the role of these services be expanded to develop skills in dealing with common mental problems.