At the Ameghino Mental Hospital, those Responsible are Elected by Their Colleagues
<p style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;">According to a report by the City watchdog, three years ago, the City declared null the selection process and, thereafter, those in charge were replaced by individual or group coordination, that, as well as being ad honorem, they do not assume all the responsibilities. There isn’t any administrative staff to manage patients’ appointments.</p>
The City watchdog (AGCBA, for its acronym in Spanish) analyzed the administration of the Mental Health Center No. 3 Dr. Arturo Ameghino, and discovered that the heads of the various areas of care "are proposed by the professionals of each sector", in other words by their peers.
The origin of this informality responsible allocation dates back to 2002 when the Center's management called for competition to fill management positions that were subsequently contested by the Municipal Association of Physicians. In 2008, by resolution of the City, the selection processes that were being used for the allocation of authorities were declared void. According to the auditors, from that time on, "all sectors of the clinical care of Ameghino lost their chiefdoms, being replaced by individuals or group coordination, in which only some of the missions and functions that belong to the office are undertaken." They also noted that the election of the authorities of each service is performed annually, and they are ad honorem designations.
Still, the report notes that in the Institute there is no efficient assistance activity of the professionals. When on June 2, 2010 the auditors set out to analyze the performance based service of establishment, they found that 53% of professionals were carrying out non-care activities such as discussion clinics, research groups, internal teaching, etc.
Furthermore, according to data released on that same day, the morning shift was slow in the attention of patients in the Adult and Ancient Care Services when compared to the average attention of patient as is set out in the Mental Health Plan of the City. It was found that the Ameghino presents a difference of "54.69% for psychiatric care and 69.41% for psychological care". Precisely this is one division that was left leaderless after 2008.
Continuing in the care level, the Audit found that in the Center "they were not satisfied with the regulations in terms of duration and extension of treatment." According to the Mental Health Plan of the City, for "individual psychotherapy the maximum period is 6 months," and only when necessary, "this term is renewable for a similar period with clinical agreement of the Head of Service, this being the exception rather than the norm." After surveys to more than 90 case histories, the watchdog warned that in 57.61% of cases, treatments that had greater than six months duration did not have the necessary authorization for the time extension.
An Administrative Issue
According to the Audits’ report approved in 2010 on the data collected during 2009, the Mental Health Center completely lacks "plant management staff to perform reception, orientation, granting, and scheduling shifts as well as the subsequent referral of patients." In addition, "for statistical data, there is only one administrative employee who processes the monthly production of around 500 professionals," and its does manually. The auditors also found that the institute lacks computing resources in different sectors. The head of the Administrative Department was another of the Divisions that, after what happened in 2008, had to choose a partner of the sector as area manager.
Health Care
The auditors found that the Center did "not bill the medical services provided" to patients who have private health insurance or regular care, although they should, as marks Article 20 of the Constitution of the City of Buenos Aires.
Judicial Tasks
The AGCBA detected several irregularities around the tasks the judges receive with specific patient requirements: half of the court documents that enter each service are not registered (the other half is partially registered), there is no proof of receipt of the task received, 26% of the cases analyzed were not answered, and no service received responses or kept copies of the documents.