My regular disclaimer – I function as an academic hospitalist, attending on the VA wards 4 or 5 months each year. I no longer have an outpatient practice.
Dr. RW has accomplished a difficult task – giving a balanced view of the hospitalist movement – A popular media view of the hospitalist movement
Skeptical as I am about the media’s handling of health care issues I found in this newspaper article form Colorado an interesting and balanced portrayal of some of the tensions between the hospitalist model and the traditional primary care model. It profiles a hospital in Fort Collins Colorado with a 5 physician hospitalist team. Like most programs it appears to be a voluntary program—primary physicians can follow their own hospitalized patients or turn them over to hospitalists.
The article – Doctors find sole niche at hospitals
The hospitalist movement has advantages and disadvantages. Many patients do get better inpatient care when they have a dedicated hospitalist. I believe this is most applicable to comanagement of surgical patients.
This newspaper article does a very nice job of defining the opposing possibilities. Certainly we do a better job of the discrete hospitalization (on average) when we have more experience in the hospital. However, the patient’s care after hospitalization may suffer compared with the traditional model.
My only fear, as the hospitalist movement matures, is that family docs and internists will retain the option of doing both hospital and outpatient care. If we lose that option, then the hospitalist movement will have caused important harm (in my opinion).
Related posts:
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
3 Responses to Hospitalists – pros and cons
Moof
February 3rd, 2006 at 10:19 am
I’ve been trying to not comment on this post, but I just can’t help myself. A few months ago, I wrote to another hospitalist blogger about my thoughts on this issue.
Although I can understand the practical advantages of the “hospitalist” movement, as a patient, I’m not at all fond of it.
When someone is at their sickest, more than likely a bit frightened … is exactly when they most want to feel that they are in the hands of the person they’ve so carefully chosen for themselves as their primary care physician. They’ve developed a working relationship with their physician, and share a mutual trust and understanding – this has taken time and effort.
Being in a hospital, under the control of other people, sick, in pain, frightened, and then having to open up and be candid with someone you’ve never seen before, and trust that person completely … is a real challenge for some of us.
Our local hospital has led the way in our area – there are a half dozen hospitalists, almost all of them are foreign, and I can barely understand them when they talk.
Ever since I realized that my own physician would no longer see me when I’m admitted, I’ve stopped seeing him. The entire idea is just too threatening to me. I’ve been told that all of the physicians at my hospital are doing the same thing now, and so I’ve been considering going to a different hopsital – nearly 20 miles away … and perhaps trying to find a PCP down in that area instead … except that I have feeling that the “hospitalist” model is going to spread to all of the local hospitals now that it’s begun, so it may not be worthwhile to bother.
I believe that, under circumstances when it’s possible, patients should be given an option of whether they will accept the care of a hospitalist over their own PCP, since the patient is fully half of the equation in the physician/patient working relationship. You might be surprised how many opt out of being cared for by hospitalists when given a choice.
I feel strongly enough about this subject that I will simply not see a PCP again … since when I need him most, I now know I’m going to end up with a stranger anyway. Over the last year or more, I’ve discovered that I’m not the only one who feels that way. Most of us haven’t said anything to our physicians, we’ve just stopped seeing them.
The hospitalist model would be fine – if it were optional, not only from a physician’s perspective, but also from a patient’s perspective. It’s great for those who don’t have a PCP, or with a PCP who is on vacation … or to deal with inpatient emergencies when the PCP can’t be there. Otherwise – the patients also need to be allowed to make a choice.
In my opinion, this is just another thrust toward the depersonalization of medicine from the patient’s perspective, and it will help widen the gap in the patient/physician partnership. Continuity is destroyed, communication falters …
primary care doc
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:53 pm
the above commentor chooses to personalize the issue. It is well she should.
Primary care doc’s are too overwhelmed with patients to do hospital work.
the “thrust for depersonalization” is reaction
to the fact that we live in a society where decisions for care are made based on economics.
sadly, this is the way the world works. Economic pressures affect everything
jj
May 26th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Good to have more eyes on patients and more opportunities to consult. Not good to leave patients in the hands of someone they do not know and do not have a relationship with. Am in southern Wisconsin, smaller community, already five hospitalists in this town’s hospital facility. The grumblings are legion. A doctor of long-standing in the community has risen up the ladder to the main hospitalist position. My father-in-law has essentially lost his primary care physician and, in the same man, now has a person who treats him quite differently. Hospital systems need to keep checking down the halls with the humans receiving care and treatment on the success of this program. Truly economic pressures and all that comes with it.