A post-Flexner comparative case study of medical training responses to health system needs in Brazil and Germany.

Health systems need medical professionals who can and will work in outpatient settings, such as general practitioner practices or health centres. However, medical students complete only a small portion of their medical training there. Furthermore, this type of training is sometimes seen as inferior to training in academic medical centres and university hospitals. Hence, the healthcare system's demand and the execution of medical curricula do not match. Robust concepts for better alignment of both these parts are lacking. This study aims to (1) describe decentral learning environments in the context of traditional medical curricula and (2) derive ideas for implementing such scenarios further in existing curricula in response to particular medicosocietal needs.This study is designed as qualitative cross-national comparative education research. It comprises three steps: first, two author teams consisting of course managers from Brazil and Germany write a report on change management efforts in their respective faculty. Both teams then compare and comment on the other's report. Emerging similarities and discrepancies are categorised. Third, a cross-national analysis is conducted on the category system.Stakeholders of medical education (medical students, teaching faculty, teachers in decentral learning environments) have differing standards, ideals and goals that are influenced by their own socialisation-prominently, Flexner's view of university hospital training as optimal training. We reiterate that both central and decentral learning environments provide meaningful complementary learning opportunities. Medical students must be prepared to navigate social aspects of learning and accept responsibility for communities. They are uniquely positioned to serve as visionaries and university ambassadors to communities. As such, they can bridge the gap between university hospitals and decentral learning environments.

SUS: avaliação da eficiência do gasto público em saúde / SUS: evaluation of the efficiency of public health spending

Após a fase aguda da pandemia de covid-19, que originou uma crise sanitária mundial, matando aproximadamente 700 mil pessoas no Brasil, parece importante refletir sobre a necessidade de se aumentar os recursos destinados ao Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Criado na Constituição federal de 1988, o SUS sofreu desde seu nascedouro com o esvaziamento do orçamento da seguridade social e o subfinanciamento das ações e serviços públicos de saúde. A partir de 2016, após a queda da presidente Dilma Rousseff, essa situação se agravou, provocando, entre outros, um processo de desfinanciamento do SUS, no contexto do aumento da pobreza e da desigualdade. Neste cenário, a 'eficiência' aparece como panaceia administrativa, a qual, em nosso caso, acaba servindo para reforçar a ideia de que os problemas do SUS resultam da falsa dicotomia entre financiamento e gestão ­ quando é plausível admitir, que boa parte de seus problemas de gestão, tenham decorrido em razão de um quadro de restrição orçamentária.