ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to evaluate the behavior of the Health Care Network (RAS) during disaster situations. The study was carried out in Santa Maria, state of Rio Grande do Sul, and had as its object the performance of the Unified Health System (SUS) after the fire that took place at the Kiss Nightclub, in 2013. This is a qualitative study, with characteristics of the Fourth Generation Assessment. The main sources of information were individual and collective interviews with representatives of groups with different interests in the proposed topic. Data analysis identified three moments of action with distinct characteristics. The initial response depended on mobilization capacity, connectivity, community resources, and convening capacity; care for survivors and their families – especially hospital care – required regulation, funding, and the ability to manage and coordinate teams with a vision of the care proposals in dispute. There was openness to less hierarchical forms of service management. The institutionality of the SUS, with resource mobilization, network, and regulatory capacity, was the most important factor in facing the effects of the disaster. The fragmentation of services and the fragility of Primary Care limited the quality of immediate care and made longitudinal care difficult.

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to evaluate the behavior of the Health Care Network (RAS) during disaster situations. The study was carried out in Santa Maria, state of Rio Grande do Sul, and had as its object the performance of the Unified Health System (SUS) after the fire that took place at the Kiss Nightclub, in 2013. This is a qualitative study, with characteristics of the Fourth Generation Assessment. The main sources of information were individual and collective interviews with representatives of groups with different interests in the proposed topic. Data analysis identified three moments of action with distinct characteristics. The initial response depended on mobilization capacity, connectivity, community resources, and convening capacity; care for survivors and their families – especially hospital care – required regulation, funding, and the ability to manage and coordinate teams with a vision of the care proposals in dispute. There was openness to less hierarchical forms of service management. The institutionality of the SUS, with resource mobilization, network, and regulatory capacity, was the most important factor in facing the effects of the disaster. The fragmentation of services and the fragility of Primary Care limited the quality of immediate care and made longitudinal care difficult.