The Hospitalist: New Boon for Internal Medicine or Retreat from Primary Care?

16 February 1999 | Volume 130 Issue 4 Part 2 | Pages 382-387

The growing reliance on hospitalists in the United States has implications for several areas of internal medicine, including patient care, administration, clinical practice, and medical education. This paper discusses some of the potential advantages and disadvantages of the use of hospitalists in each of these areas. The new hospitalist practice mode highlights long-standing tensions about the role and direction of internal medicine, tensions that affect generalist and specialty care in both outpatient and hospital settings. The career trajectory of hospitalists will depend on whether burnout is a problem and on whether hospitalists will be able to compete effectively with subspecialists, such as cardiologists and physicians specializing in AIDS. Clearly, hospitalism meets a clinical need and expands opportunities for internists, but it is important that it not overreach, forfeiting primary care turf and distorting medical education. This new field warrants close monitoring because of its potential effects and because—unlike related fields, such as emergency medicine and intensive care—its birth was strongly influenced by system-wide financial considerations.

Author and Article Information

From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey.
Note: This article is one of a series of articles comprising an Annals of Internal Medicine supplement entitled " The Hospitalist Movement in the United States." To see a complete list of the articles included in this supplement, please view its Table of Contents.

Requests for Reprints: Steven A. Schroeder, MD, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, PO Box 2316, Princeton, NJ 08543-2315.

Current Author Addresses: Dr. Schroeder and Ms. Schapiro: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, PO Box 2316, Princeton, NJ 08543-2315.