Friend or foe? How primary care physicians perceive hospitalists.

BACKGROUND: Increased use of hospitalists is redefining the role of primary care physicians. Whether primary care physicians welcome this transition is unknown. We examined primary care physicians' perceptions of how hospitalists affect their practices, their patient relationships, and overall patient care. METHODS: A mailed survey of randomly selected general internists, general pediatricians, and family practitioners with experience with hospitalists practicing in California. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' self-reports of hospitalists' effects on quality of patient care and on their own practices. RESULTS: Seven hundred eight physicians were eligible for this study, and there was a 74% response rate. Of the 524 physicians who responded, 34% were internists, 38% were family practitioners, and 29% were pediatricians. Of the 524 respondents, 335 (64%) had hospitalists available to them and 120 (23%) were required to use hospitalists for all admissions. Physicians perceived hospitalists as increasing (41%) or not changing (44%) the overall quality of care and perceived their practice style differences as neutral or beneficial. Twenty-eight percent of primary care physicians believed that the quality of the physician-patient relationship decreased; 69% reported that hospitalists did not affect their income; 53% believed that hospitalists decreased their workload; and 50% believed that hospitalists increased practice satisfaction. In a multivariate model predicting physician perceptions, internists, physicians who attributed loss of income to hospitalists, and physicians in mandatory hospitalist systems viewed hospitalists less favorably. CONCLUSIONS: Practicing primary care physicians have generally favorable perceptions of hospitalists' effect on patients and on their own practice satisfaction, especially in voluntary hospitalist systems that decrease the workload of primary care physicians and do not threaten their income. Primary care physicians, particularly internists, are less accepting of mandatory hospitalist systems. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2902-2908

Prevalence of endometriosis in adolescent girls with chronic pelvic pain not responding to conventional therapy.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate adolescent girls with chronic pelvic pain not responding to conventional medical therapy, using advances in operative laparoscopy to determine endometriosis prevalence, clinical stage, and type of lesion. DESIGN: A descriptive retrospective study of subjects who (1) were referred for the evaluation of chronic pelvic pain, (2) did not respond to a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and an oral contraceptive pill, and (3) underwent a laparoscopy to determine the etiology of the pelvic pain. SETTING: Patients referred to a surgical gynecologist in a pediatric/adolescent gynecology and reproductive endocrine academic practice. PARTICIPANTS: All patients younger than 22 years of age with chronic pelvic pain. INTERVENTION: Operative laparoscopy to determine the etiology of the chronic pelvic pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative laparoscopy results including stage and description of endometriosis. RESULTS: More than two thirds of the study population (69.6%) was found to have endometriosis. All subjects had either stage I or II as determined by the American Fertility Society's classification system. The nature of the pain in the 32 subjects with endometriosis was both acyclic and cyclic in 20 (62.5%), acyclic only in 9 (28.1%), and cyclic only in 3 (9.4%). Other presenting symptoms included gastrointestinal in 11 (34.3%), urinary in 4 (12.5%), and irregular menses in 3 (9.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents with chronic pelvic pain not responding to medical therapy have a high rate of endometriosis and should be referred to a gynecologist who is experienced with the subtle laparoscopic findings of atypical endometriosis to diagnose the etiology of the pelvic pain and initiate appropriate therapy.

The future of internal medicine.

Internal medicine may be in its twilight because it has failed to address the shortage of primary care physicians by training more general internists. Data from several sources indicate that progressively fewer persons are entering general internal medicine as opposed to its subspecialties. The reasons for this decline include adverse experiences in medical school, an unfavorable patient mix, declining incomes, and increasing hassles in caring for patients. A series of reforms, such as improving the teaching in medical school, strengthening divisions of general medicine, and establishing financial incentives, are proposed to reverse this trend. Other actions that must be taken include stopping the proliferation of subspecialty certificates, designating and accrediting primary care tracks, and cutting subspecialty positions. Internal medicine's fate is in its own hands, and the discipline must reorient itself to conform to societal needs.