Residências multiprofissionais em saúde no Brasil: uma análise em torno de controvérsias

Abstract

This study addresses the controversies in dialogues and debates about the Multi-professional Residency in Health. Through the analysis of discursive practices and production of meanings, we‟ve walked through different ways and materials within a network of voices, experiences, places, knowledge and shared practices around experiences within Multi-professional Residencies, using forums, letters and various documents that constitute the daily and institutionalized aspects of Multi-professional Residencies in Health. In addition to that, a chatting circle was thought as a strategy to point out the controversies existent in the daily practices of Multi-professional Residency programs. In this journey, we‟ve seen encounters with controversies in the ways of being and understanding the residents. Three sets of meanings were presented for the controversies: first, an actor who is narrated and narrates about himself in many ways, seeking an identity while creating ways of being in the countryside. A move marked by power relations, desires and interests in constant dispute. Moving constantly, performing their practices in many ways. Which place is worth occupying? Is it necessary to occupy only one place? Second, comes controversies that link to the functions of tutoring and preceptorship. The institutional recognition of these subjects was presented within a field of forces, that not only dispute the possibility of making it somehow feasible but also ways of doing so. The narratives denounce the precariousness of these functions and show that the ways of building practices in such territories are not being heard. And finally the third, which focuses on the dimension of formation, in a game between instituted and instituting, constantly disputing territories within the hegemonic logic, in a dispute that is sometimes unfair insofar as they constitute individual processes. Resistance seems to be not allowing oneself to be captured by care, pedagogical, managerial projects that are distant from the dialogue within SUS principles. Meanwhile, different subjects positions are clear to show that the interests around the Residences are diverse. In such sense, dialogue and the strengthening of training around an ethical and political commitment show up as a demand, and the problematization of daily practice, supported by Permanent Education, presents itself as a possible strategy.