Formação 'no' e 'para' o trabalho do SUS: uma análise à luz da Política Nacional de Educação Permanente em saúde e da atenção psicossocial

Abstract

This work is scientific research with a qualitative approach. It uses Karl Marx's dialectical critical historical materialism as fundamental to its development. The methodology used comprises bibliographical study and documentary analysis in periodicals in the area of education and health, as well as studies of documents, legislation, and reference authors in the academic universe that relate to the discussion of Permanent Health Education (EPS). To prepare it, our general objective was to analyze how Permanent Health Education contributes to reflections on the inseparability between education and health, as well as the urgency of ethical, technical and political training as recommended by the SUS. And for specific objectives: identify whether and how proposals for continuing health education are being developed in university hospitals (HU); highlight the centrality of the role of the national continuing health education policy in these institutions and analyze the challenges and potential of the PNEPS intervention regarding the formation of a multidisciplinary team in the area of psychosocial care. We seek to answer the following guiding questions: how does the formation of a multidisciplinary health team occur within university hospitals? How has EPS contributed to multidisciplinary training in psychosocial care? Has professional training used an expanded concept of health? Therefore, this research has as its object of study the national policy of continuing health education, dealing with an analysis of training “in” and “for” the SUS, highlighting training and emphasis on psychosocial care. Finally, we concluded in the study that PNEPS has potential and effectiveness in its training cycles in hospital settings, however, it has presented mistakes when it has been discussed under the assumption of overcoming social inequalities in health through the actions of a multidisciplinary team, without operationalize the deepening of the discussion regarding the production and reproduction of human suffering and illness (physical or mental) under the capital production mode. And all these elements reflect the maintenance of stigmas, prejudices and resistance of these teams in working in the area of psychosocial care.