Insertion and performance of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology in Family Health Support Centers

Purpose: To analyze the structure of the Centers for Supporting the Family Health (NASF), in 2010, identify the satisfaction degree of speech language pathologists who work in this area and compare the model proposed by the Brazilian Ministry of Health with practice. Methods: Prospective and descriptive study, with 40 speech language pathologists inserted in NASF type one, from all Brazilian regions, in 2010. It was used a questionnaire with nine questions related to different topics (work infrastructure, NASF team, actions developed by these professionals and satisfaction about the work), sent by electronic mail to the speech language pathologists. Descriptive statistics, chi(2), ANOVA and Pearson coefficient of variation were used to analyze variables. Significance level of 5% was adopted. Results: The speech language pathologists reported that, in their working places (NASF), there was an average of 12.2 Health Family Teams, with 8.9 professionals and 1.6 speech language pathologists. Most of them work 40 hours per week. Routine activities cited by speech language pathologists were: promotion and health prevention actions, matricial, therapies, support to health community workers, referrals, home visits, intersectoral actions and administrative tasks. There was variability in the satisfaction score: the majority of interviewees indicated the degree "Somewhat satisfied" for work infrastructure and referrals, as well as reported "Very satisfied" degree for home visits and support for health community workers. Comparing the model proposed by the Ministry of Health with the speech language pathologists' practices, there was no significant difference. The results show that 40% of speech language pathologists consider that the NASF actions are below the proposed model. Conclusion: The NASF structure varied in terms of the number of Family Health Teams, professionals involved and actions performed. There was also significant variability in the satisfaction degree among the subjects studied.