O Serviço de Atendimento Móvel de Urgência (SAMU) foi o primeiro componente da Política Nacional de Atenção às Urgências implantado no país no começo dos anos 2000. O artigo analisou o processo de implantação da urgência pré-hospitalar móvel no Brasil. Os métodos incluíram análise documental, entrevistas com coordenadores estaduais de urgência e um painel de especialistas. Utilizou-se o referencial teórico da análise da conduta estratégica da Teoria da Estruturação de Giddens. Os resultados evidenciaram uma implantação do SAMU desigual entre estados e regiões, identificando seis padrões de implantação considerando-se a capacidade dos estados de expandir a cobertura populacional e de regionalizar. As dificuldades estruturais incluíram a fixação de médicos, centrais de regulação mal equipadas e escassez de ambulâncias. Norte e Nordeste foram as regiões mais atingidas. O SAMU está configurado como estratégia estruturante da rede de urgências, mas seu desempenho sofreu o impacto da pouca participação da atenção primária na rede de urgências e principalmente da falta de leitos hospitalares.

OBJECTIVETo analyze the process of implementation of emergency care units in Brazil.METHODSWe have carried out a documentary analysis, with interviews with twenty-four state urgency coordinators and a panel of experts. We have analyzed issues related to policy background and trajectory, players involved in the implementation, expansion process, advances, limits, and implementation difficulties, and state coordination capacity. We have used the theoretical framework of the analysis of the strategic conduct of the Giddens theory of structuration.RESULTSEmergency care units have been implemented after 2007, initially in the Southeast region, and 446 emergency care units were present in all Brazilian regions in 2016. Currently, 620 emergency care units are under construction, which indicates expectation of expansion. Federal funding was a strong driver for the implementation. The states have planned their emergency care units, but the existence of direct negotiation between municipalities and the Union has contributed with the significant number of emergency care units that have been built but that do not work. In relation to the urgency network, there is tension with the hospital because of the lack of beds in the country, which generates hospitalizations in the emergency care unit. The management of emergency care units is predominantly municipal, and most of the emergency care units are located outside the capitals and classified as Size III. The main challenges identified were: under-funding and difficulty in recruiting physicians.CONCLUSIONSThe emergency care unit has the merit of having technological resources and being architecturally differentiated, but it will only succeed within an urgency network. Federal induction has generated contradictory responses, since not all states consider the emergency care unit a priority. The strengthening of the state management has been identified as a challenge for the implementation of the urgency network.