I
think when people are at their sickness (in the hospital) they want
to be cared for by the doctor who knows them best. This is becoming
an option available for fewer and fewer people nowadays both locally
and nationally.
The
concept of the hospitalist specialty is to have a doctor who only
takes care of patients in the hospital. No care is provided in an
office setting and no long-term doctor/patient relationship exists.
The
theoretic advantages include having a doctor always available on site
to immediately address test results and changes in the patient's
condition. This arrangement should be able to save money by allowing
patients to be discharged to home sooner.
The
disadvantages include having a doctor who doesn't know the full,
often complex, history of the patient including prior evaluations and
treatment. Upon the patient's release, the family doctor often does
not know what transpired during the hospitalization and what followup
is needed.
Not
surprisingly, the theoretic advantages have not materialized. Recent
studies show that any cost savings from an earlier release from the
hospital in patient's cared for by hospitalists are more than offset
by the expense of additional ER visits and readmissions to the
hospital in the month following discharge.
It
seems to me that under the guise of "focusing on outpatient care
", family practice doctors who choose not to care for their
hospitalized patients are abdicating their professional
responsibility. I would not choose a doctor that was only committed
to my healthcare while they are in the office 6 hours a day, 4 days a
week. But maybe that's just me.
