de Robert Wachter, 2010
"It is gratifying to watch the growth of the hospitalist movement in Brazil. As you know, the field has grown remarkably quickly in the US, and it is now the fastest growing specialty in American medical history. Its growth has been driven by both research and experience documenting that strong hospitalist programs lead to improved quality, efficiency, and medical education. Moreover, with the increasing emphasis on improving systems of care, hospitalists came along at precisely the right time: their focus on both the care of individual patients and on making hospital systems work better is now considered the leading edge of an attitude we're trying to promote in all our physicians.
Early on, many hospitalists in the United States complained that they were not considered full-fledged physicians; some talked about being treated like "super-residents." Although I still hear this complaint from time to time, it is now fairly unusual. Most physicians, hospitals, and patients have recognized the central role of hospitalists in direct care and coordination, and hospitalists have assumed their role at the center of many systems. In fact, increasing numbers of hospitalists are assuming leadership positions. At the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), for example, hospitalists in my group are now the Associate Chief Medical Officer, the Medical Director for Information Technology, and the Associate Chair for Safety and Quality (in addition to a number of other important roles). This is one small window into the fact that our hospitalists are now considered full-fledged, highly respected members of the medical staff.
This transition is natural; while there are things that hospitalists can and should do to move it along, it is the natural evolution of a specialty, as it transitions from new idea into a mature field with well trained specialists, separate certification, and widespread recognition of its value. Hospitalists bring such value to all of the parties: primary care doctors, specialists, hospital leaders, and most importantly, patients. It is just a matter of time before this value is fully recognized in Brazil.
-- Bob Wachter"
1st, community physicians were not willing to take call to cover the emergencies at their hospitals. Hospitals were forced to hire hospitalists to assume responsibility for "unassigned patients" in the emergency department. Community physicians did not complain about this because this was taking a burden off of them.
In parallel with this, managed care oversight impacted the amount of inpatient "business" for community physicians. With fewer and fewer patients in the hospital (and those that were in the hospital being complex, sick patients), the economics of doing inpatient care became less desirable for community physicians. In a slow but steady fashion, community physicians began to refer their patients to hospitalists.
In addition, 2 other "forces" impacted the growth of hospital medicine. 1) At teaching hospitals, resident work hours were limited by new national policy. Thus, hospitalists had to be hired to assume to front line responsibility for patient care at teaching hospitals. 2) Multi-specialty group practices made the decision to implement hospitals because they saw it as a superior model and one that made sense economically and from a lifestyle perspective.
Thus, although there was outright hostility to hospitalists in the early days, once a program is implemented at a given hospital, often the most vocal critics change their minds within relatively short periods of time.
Early on, many hospitalists in the United States complained that they were not considered full-fledged physicians; some talked about being treated like "super-residents." Although I still hear this complaint from time to time, it is now fairly unusual. Most physicians, hospitals, and patients have recognized the central role of hospitalists in direct care and coordination, and hospitalists have assumed their role at the center of many systems. In fact, increasing numbers of hospitalists are assuming leadership positions. At the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), for example, hospitalists in my group are now the Associate Chief Medical Officer, the Medical Director for Information Technology, and the Associate Chair for Safety and Quality (in addition to a number of other important roles). This is one small window into the fact that our hospitalists are now considered full-fledged, highly respected members of the medical staff.
This transition is natural; while there are things that hospitalists can and should do to move it along, it is the natural evolution of a specialty, as it transitions from new idea into a mature field with well trained specialists, separate certification, and widespread recognition of its value. Hospitalists bring such value to all of the parties: primary care doctors, specialists, hospital leaders, and most importantly, patients. It is just a matter of time before this value is fully recognized in Brazil.
-- Bob Wachter"
de Joseph A. Miller (Senior Vice President, Society of Hospital Medicine), 2008
"Hospital Medicine has grown as a marketplace phenomena, not because of any mandate. A few things drove this development here:1st, community physicians were not willing to take call to cover the emergencies at their hospitals. Hospitals were forced to hire hospitalists to assume responsibility for "unassigned patients" in the emergency department. Community physicians did not complain about this because this was taking a burden off of them.
In parallel with this, managed care oversight impacted the amount of inpatient "business" for community physicians. With fewer and fewer patients in the hospital (and those that were in the hospital being complex, sick patients), the economics of doing inpatient care became less desirable for community physicians. In a slow but steady fashion, community physicians began to refer their patients to hospitalists.
In addition, 2 other "forces" impacted the growth of hospital medicine. 1) At teaching hospitals, resident work hours were limited by new national policy. Thus, hospitalists had to be hired to assume to front line responsibility for patient care at teaching hospitals. 2) Multi-specialty group practices made the decision to implement hospitals because they saw it as a superior model and one that made sense economically and from a lifestyle perspective.
Thus, although there was outright hostility to hospitalists in the early days, once a program is implemented at a given hospital, often the most vocal critics change their minds within relatively short periods of time.
Good luck!
JOE"
JOE"
de Gregory Maynard, UCSD, 2008 (C’mon in, the water is just fine)
Myth:
Hospitalists will steal my patients.
Reality:
Hospitalists are dedicated inpatient clinicians. They do not have outpatient practices. They can assume primary care for patients while they are in the hospital, but depend on community physicians to provide post hospitalization care. Generally, use of hospital medicine services in voluntary.
Myth:
I will lose prestige and money if I use hospitalists to provide care for my hospitalized patients.
Reality:
The early reluctance to use hospitalists in the US has largely disappeared, as evidenced by the astronomical growth of the hospital medicine movement here. Much of the growth of hospital medicine in the US is fueled by the advantages they provide to community physicians, surgeons, and sub-specialists. These groups soon realized that they could work much more efficiently in their office or consultative settings when they did not have to go from the office to the hospital setting every day, take care of patients in the middle of the night, or go to several hospitals in a day. The reimbursement for their relatively small inpatient practice was not worth the travel time and time lost from their core work. Patients appreciated having a physician that was very familiar with the inner workings of the hospital available to them for more the day. Providing that their primary care provider and hospitalist communicate and explain their respective roles, patient satisfaction with the arrangement is very good.
Myth:
Hospitalists should restrict their work to urgent / emergent needs of inpatients when I am not physically present.
Reality:
Hospitalists are uniquely positioned to take comprehensive care of the inpatient with complex problems. Their availability is only one of the reasons why they produce better outcomes than non-hospitalists in study after study. They are vested in making the hospital environment and the systems of care better and safer for patients and staff. They ‘own’ rather than ‘rent’ the use of the hospital and the complex systems within it, and are rapidly assuming leadership roles in all manner of quality and safety initiatives. They are constantly focused on protocols and the standardization of care in their work environment, and the modern medical center needs this kind of focus to improve their overall patient outcomes.
I suggest you find a good hospitalist group and make sure you have a communication plan worked out, and just try the arrangement on a few of your patients… you’ll soon see the advantages for yourself. C’mon in, the water is just fine.
Regards.
Greg Maynard MD, MSc
Clinical Professor of Medicine and Chief, Division of Hospital Medicine
University of California, San Diego"
