Ombudsman do Paciente Ouvidoria Hospitalar e do SUS no Brasil: Análise das Suas Distinções Sobre a Ótica dos Direitos do Paciente

Aline Albuquerque; Mariana Lima Menegaz; Claudia Maria Figueiredo Matias

Authors

Aline Albuquerque Doctor of Health Sciences from the University of Brasília (UnB). Visiting researcher at the University of Oxford. Professor in the Postgraduate Program in Bioethics at UnB. Director of the Brazilian Institute of Patient Rights.
Mariana Lima Menegaz PhD in Bioethics from the University of Brasília (UnB). Master's degree in Law from the São Paulo State University (Unesp). Director of the Brazilian Institute of Patient Law.
Claudia Maria Figueiredo Matias Graduated in Psychology from the Catholic University of Santos (UniSantos). Manager of Quality, Patient Safety and Hospital Ombudsman. Director of the Brazilian Institute of Patient Rights.

Keywords:

Bioethics, Damage repair, Patients, Patient Ombudsman, Patient's Right

Abstract

This article aims to analyze the similarities and differences between the patient ombudsman and the receiving hospital and SUS manifestations service, in the Brazilian context, from the perspective of patient rights. From a methodological perspective, this is theoretical research, based on the Final Report of the European Union on Patient Rights, the studies by Mackenney and Fallberg (2004) and Molven (2007), regarding the patient ombudsman, as well as the framework formulated by Albuquerque (2018, 2020, 2022, 2023) on patient rights. Thus, the article addresses patient rights as a new legal branch, highlighting the right to file a complaint and the right to full compensation in the context of health care. Next, an analysis of the patient ombudsman and the receiving manifestations service in Brazil is carried out. Afterwards, the approximations and distances between the patient ombudsman, receiving hospital and SUS manifestations service in Brazil are verified. It is concluded that the patient ombudsman, based on patient rights, is not equivalent to a receiving hospital and SUS manifestations service in Brazil. The reflections point to the possibility of adopting the patient ombudsman in Brazil, especially for situations of violations to patients’ rights.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

AASEN, E. M.; DAHL, B. M. Construction of patients’ position in Norway’s patients’ rights act. Nursing Ethics, [s. l.], v. 26, n. 7-8, p. 2278-2287, Aug. 2019.

ALBUQUERQUE, A. Ombudsman do paciente: direitos nos cuidados em saúde. Revista

Bioética, [s. l.], v. 26, n. 3, p. 326-332, 2018.

ALBUQUERQUE, A. Manual de direito do paciente. Belo Horizonte: CEI, 2020.

ALBUQUERQUE, A. Disclosure de incidentes de segurança do paciente sob a ótica do direito do paciente. Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário, [s. l.], v. 11, n. 3, p. 70-109, set. 2022.

ALBUQUERQUE, A. Empatia nos cuidados em saúde. Santana de Parnaíba: Manole, 2023.

ALBUQUERQUE, A.; REGIS, A. Mecanismos jurídicos de segurança do paciente: repensando o tratamento legal do tema no Brasil. Revista de Direito Sanitário, [s. l.], v. 20, n. 3, p. 3-25, dez. 2020.

ALLSOP, J.; MULCAHY, L. Dealing with clinical complaints. Quality in Health Care, [s. l.], v. 4, p. 135-143, 1995.

AVANT MUTUAL GROUP LIMITED. When patients complain: what you really need to know. Sidney: Learning Centre Handbook, 2016.

BRASIL. Guia de orientações básicas para implantação de ouvidorias do SUS. 2. ed. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2014.

BRASIL. Lei n. 13.460, de 26 de junho de 2017. Dispõe sobre participação, proteção e defesa dos direitos do usuário dos serviços públicos da administração pública. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2017/lei/l13460.htm. Acesso em: 22 set. 2025.

BRASIL. Fala.BR. [s. d.].

CHAVES, D. F.; BARBOSA, F. G.; MENEZES, J. S. N. Desenvolvimento da qualidade hospitalar por meio da demanda da ouvidoria. Revista Científica da Associação Brasileira de Ouvidores/Ombudsman, [s. l.], n. 2, p. 219-229, 2019.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION. European Charter of Patient’s Rights. Brussels: European Commission, 2002.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Patients’ Rights in the European Union Mapping eXercise. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016.

FLOOD, C. M.; MAY, K. A patient charter of rights: how to avoid a toothless tiger and achieve system improvement. CMAJ, [s. l.], v. 184, n. 14, p. 1583-1587, 2012.

FREITAS, D. C. P. e S. de; HENZ, A. P. Clima organizacional na gestão hospitalar e seus impactos: revisão bibliográfica. Pleiade, [s. l.], v. 17, n. 41, p. 5-18, out./dez. 2023.

GALLAGHER, T.; MAZOR, K. Taking complaints seriously: using the patient safety lens. BMJ Quality & Safety, [s. l.], v. 24, p. 352-355, May 2015.

GRUPO IBES. 7 funções da ouvidoria ou SAC nas organizações de saúde. São Paulo: Grupo Ibes, 2018.

LAARMAN, B. S. De rol van het recht als er iets misgaat in de Gezondheidszorg. 2022. These (Promotion in Rechtswissenschaften) – Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 2022.

LEGEMAATE, J. Het klachtrecht van de patiënt. Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidsrecht, [s. l.], v. 31, p. 418-427, 2007.

MACKENNEY S.; FALLBERG, L. Protecting patients’ rights? A comparative study of the ombudsman in healthcare. Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press, 2004.

MACLEOD, S.; URHO, M.; HODGES, C. Nordic injury compensation schemes. In: MACLEOD, S.; HODGES, C. Redress schemes for personal injuries. London: Bloomsbury, 2017. p. 161-166.

MCQUEEN, J. et al. Adverse event reviews in healthcare: what matters to patients and their family? A qualitative study exploring the perspective of patients and family. BMJ Open, [s. l.], v. 9, n. 12, p. 1-9, 2022.

MENEGAZ, M. Direito de apresentar queixa e direito à reparação no contexto dos direitos dos pacientes. In: ALBUQUERQUE, A.; MELGAÇO, N. Direito do paciente: formação e atualização. Ponta Grossa: Atena, 2023. p. 107-118.

MOLVEN, O. O ombudsman do paciente: a experiência norueguesa. Revista de Direito

Sanitário, [s. l.], v. 8, n. 2, p. 105-155, fev. 2007.

SILVA, F. de A. da et al. O papel da ouvidoria pública e privada: uma evolução inconteste no mundo, no Brasil e na Paraíba. Temas em Saúde, [s. l.], v. 20, n. 6, p. 245-263, 2020. SIRPA, E. et al. Potilasasiamiehen toimenkuva. 2021. p. 1-23. Disponível em: https://www. lshp.fi/download/noname/%7B6D41A2B6-78AA-46C9-80B6-4A1731175CBE%7D/9462. Acesso em: 25 ago. 2025.

STUDART, D. M.; BRENNAN, T. A. No-fault compensation for medical injuries: the prospect for error prevention. JAMA, [s. l.], v. 286, n. 2, p. 217-223, 2001.

SUNDLER, A. et al. Are they really allowed to treat me like that? A qualitative study to explore the nature of formal patient complaints about mental healthcare services in Sweden. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, [s. l.], v. 31, p. 348-357, 2022.

THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND HYNECOLOGISTS. Committee

Opinion N.o 68: disclosure and discussion of adverse events. Obstetrics & Gynecology,

[s. l.], v. 128, p. 257-261, 2016.

VINCENT, C. Compensation as a duty of care: the case for “no fault”. BMJ Quality & Safety, [s. l.], v. 12, p. 240-241, 2003.

ΠΑΠΑΓΙΆΝΝΗ, M. E. et al. Μηχανισμός διερεύνησης καταγγελιών στο Εθνικό Σύστημα Υγείας Κριτική προσέγγιση και προτάσεις βελτίωσης [Mecanismo de investigação de reclamações no Sistema Nacional de Saúde: abordagem crítica e sugestões de melhoria].

Athens Medical Society, [s. l.], v. 39, n. 1, p. 121-128, 2022.