Practice style differences between family physicians and internists.

BACKGROUND: Because an estimated 70 percent of all medical care expenditures are generated by physicians, evaluation of specialty practice styles is essential to learn what changes in policies governing physician training, service delivery, and patterns of medical practice would promote cost containment. METHODS: We examined the 1981 and 1985 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey for seven primary care diagnoses to compare practice style differences between family physicians and internists and to look for changes in family physicians' practice styles between 1981 and 1985. RESULTS: Family physicians referred fewer patients in 1985 and spent 3 to 10.5 minutes less per patient encounter than internists. Clinical laboratory testing, electrocardiogram (ECG) ordering, and radiographic examinations differed significantly between the two groups in 1981 and 1985 for some diagnoses. In 1981, family physicians did Papanicolaou smears 2.2 times more often than internists during general medical examinations; however, in 1985, there was no difference. Between 1981 and 1985, family physicians ordered significantly more laboratory tests and ECGs for some diagnoses but had no change in the number of radiographs ordered or referrals. For six diagnoses, they spent more time with a patient encounter in 1985 than in 1981. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians and internists appear to be more alike in practice style, but significant differences remain. These differences, as well as changing practice styles of family physicians, have implications for training and health care resource distribution.     

Pediatric emergencies in the office: are family physicians as prepared as pediatricians?

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the occurrence of pediatric emergencies in the offices of family physicians and pediatricians, the preparedness to respond, and the perceived importance of being prepared. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional random mail survey of physicians. POPULATION: Surveys were sent to 187 family physicians and 129 pediatricians practicing in North Carolina with 75% and 86% response rates, respectively. The 169 total respondents were in community practices regularly treating children and were included for analysis. OUTCOMES MEASURED: We measured the incidence of 8 types of pediatric emergencies, the availability of 11 items for resuscitation and stabilization, whether the physician had Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) training in the previous 2 years, whether the office ever conducted a mock emergency, and beliefs about the importance of preparing for and providing emergency care to children. RESULTS: Six types of pediatric emergencies were seen in one third or more of all practices during the year. The average practice saw 4 or more pediatric emergencies in a year (family physicians = 3.8 vs pediatricians = 4.9, P <.001). Family physicians had fewer resuscitation and stabilization items than pediatricians (5.7 vs 8.6 items, P <.001) and were less prepared in terms of PALS training (19% vs 51%, P <.001). Those with PALS training were more likely to have an intraosseous needle and Broselow tape and to have conducted a mock code. Family physicians considered it is less important than pediatricians to provide such care or to be prepared to do so. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric emergencies in the office are likely for either specialty. Family physicians may be less prepared, and they discount the importance of the problem and need for preparation.     

The practices of general and subspecialty internists in counseling about smoking and exercise.

We compared the practices of subspecialists and general internists in counseling about smoking and exercise, using data from a study of recent graduates of United States training programs in internal medicine. Information on the characteristics of physicians and their clinical practices was obtained from self-report questionnaires. The internists most likely to counsel smokers regardless of the presence or absence of diseases associated with smoking are cardiologists, pulmonary specialists, nephrologists, and generalists trained in a primary care residency funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation or Health Resources Administration. Most internists practice tertiary prevention by counseling a high percentage of smokers with heart or lung disease. Rheumatologists counsel a higher percentage of all patients with poor exercise habits but a lower percentage of such patients with heart disease than do other internists. The differences in counseling related to training are not explained by different levels of involvement as a primary care physician. Rather, these differences appear to reflect training and subspecialty-specific priorities for counseling.     

Comparisons among three types of generalist physicians: Personal characteristics, medical school experiences, financial aid, and other factors influencing career choice

A national survey of family physicians, general internists, and general pediatricians was conducted in the US to examine differences among the three groups of generalists physicians, with particular regard to the factors influencing their choice of generalist career. Family physicians were more likely to have made their career decision before medical school, and were more likely to have come from inner-city or rural areas. Personal values and early role models play a very important role in influencing their career choice. In comparison, a higher proportion of general internists had financial aid service obligations and their choice of the specialty was least influenced by personal values. General pediatricians had more clinical experiences either in primary care or with underserved populations, and they regarded medical school experiences as more important in influencing their specialty choice than did the other two groups. Admission committees may use these specialty-related factors to develop strategies to attract students into each type of generalist career.     

Educational needs of internal medicine residency graduates: general internist versus subspecialists

Residency training is inadequate with respect to the needs of general internal medicine doctors in several areas. We undertook this study to determine the practice habits and educational requirements of general versus subspecialty internists. A survey was mailed to 138 doctors who had completed at least a three-year university-based internal medicine post-graduate training. Sixty-three (46%) responded, of whom 32 completed additional training in a subspecialty of internal medicine. Many (14 of 32) subspecialists described their practice as general internal medicine (GIM) with a subspecialty emphasis. GIM was as important to their practice as it was to the general internists. General internists saw non-internal medicine disciplines as important but subspecialists did not. General internists frequently performed procedures that were not formally taught during training, while subspecialists rarely if ever performed a procedure outside the scope of their fellowship training. Internal medicine training programmes should be able to individualize training based on the career choices of trainees such that training will more fully prepare trainees for practice.     

Gatekeeping in primary care: a comparison of internal medicine and family practice

Five hundred twenty new patients were randomly and prospectively assigned to receive their care in the Internal Medicine Clinic or Family Practice Clinic of a large university hospital. The patients were followed by residents in training under the supervision of board-certified internists or family physicians. After a mean length of care of slightly over two years, the charts were reviewed for frequency of visits to primary care providers (internal medicine or family practice), Emergency Room, Acute Care Clinic, and all clinics other than the two primary care clinics. The records were also reviewed for laboratory tests ordered. Frequency of visits to the clinic of primary care, Emergency Room, Acute Care Clinic, and broken appointments were all significantly higher for patients randomized to the Internal Medicine Clinic. In addition, the median total annual cost of laboratory tests for patients followed by internal medicine physicians was significantly higher, largely because of higher laboratory charges generated by the specialist consultants. Over the study period, internal medicine patients had a significantly higher number of visits to all nonprimary care clinics and specifically to the dermatology, obstetrics and gynecology, and general surgery consultant clinics. It can be concluded that in this clinical environment, the practice styles of internal medicine and family practice are different.     

Emergency contraception: prescribing practices of general internists compared with other primary care physicians

Primary care physicians of all specialties should be familiar with prescribing emergency contraception (EC). We conducted a mail survey of 282 randomly sampled physicians in general internal medicine (31%), family medicine (34%) and obstetrics-gynecology (35%). Experience with prescribing EC significantly differed by specialty (63% of general internists, 76% of family physicians, and 94% of obstetrician-gynecologists, p < 0.0001). Controlling for year of graduation, gender, religion and practice location, family physicians [adjusted odds ratio (OR): 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-5.2] and obstetrician-gynecologists (adjusted OR: 11.2, 95% CI: 4.0-31.3) were still significantly more likely to have ever prescribed EC than general internists. Efforts to increase awareness and knowledge of EC should be aimed at general internists since they provide primary care for many reproductive age women.     

Pediatric admissions by family physicians and pediatricians in a semirural environment: implications for residency training

BACKGROUND: The 3-year family practice residency curriculum includes longitudinal care of children in the family health center and a 4-month experience dedicated to the care of children. This study was designed to compare the diseases of hospitalized children cared for by family physicians and pediatricians and to examine the use of pediatricians as consultants by family physicians. METHODS: The study included all patients younger than 18 years who were discharged by a family physician or a pediatrician from this semirural hospital during a 3-year period. The primary discharge diagnosis, physician, consultations, and transfer status were recorded. RESULTS: Family physicians cared for 37 percent of the 4169 pediatric patients discharged during the study. Infectious diseases and their complications were the most common conditions for patients who were discharged beyond the newborn period. The 15 most frequent discharge diagnoses were identical for family physicians and pediatricians, accounting for about 86 percent of all discharge diagnoses. Pediatricians, however, cared for 86 percent of the newborns with major complications and were responsible for 80 percent of the infants and children who were transferred. The overall inpatient consultation rate of pediatricians by family physicians was 8 percent, whereas the consultation rate for nonneonatal-related discharges was 20 percent. CONCLUSION: In this semirural environment, family physicians and pediatricians care for a very similar mix of hospitalized pediatric patients. Pediatricians, however, care for a greater proportion of newborns with major complications.     

德国家庭医生执业路径及服务模式

德国“家庭医生”包含全科医生、家庭内科医生和儿科医生三类医师。除门诊开业外,家庭医生执业场所可延伸至医院,医院通过加强私人诊所与医院之间的良好互动从而发展整合医疗。家庭医师协会作为家庭医生职业群体代理,在福利报酬等方面与政府医保支付机构进行谈判。“家庭医生服务模式”下,疾病保险基金通过改进与家庭医生的服务购买协议,从而达到激励患者和服务提供方主动依从“守门人”制度的效果。     

Perceived influence of different information sources on the decision-making of internal medicine house staff and faculty

To determine the extent to which different sources of information are perceived to influence common medical decisions, 10 interns, 22 senior residents and 9 faculty general internists rated the degree of influence of house staff, general internists, subspecialists, conferences, journal reading and past experience on their decisions concerning primary prevention (vaccination), secondary prevention (screening) and drug therapy. Analysis of variance of their questionnaire data supports the following conclusions: physicians at different stages of training rely on different sources of information; as physicians advance in training the influence of generalists wanes while that of subspecialists increases; subspecialists and past experience are perceived as primarily affecting therapeutic decisions; primary prevention appears least subject to influence by prevailing information sources; and the preference for reading begins early and increases as physicians advance in training. These data suggest that designing effective medical education requires considering the level of the physician's training and the nature of the medical decision.     

Do Subspecialists Ask About and Refer Families with Psychosocial Concerns? A Comparison with General Pediatricians

Objectives Calls for pediatricians to tend to children’s psychosocial concerns have existed for decades because they are known to negatively impact child health. Children with chronic illnesses frequently have child- and family-level psychosocial concerns that complicate the care provided by their pediatric subspecialists. This study compares pediatricians who exclusively practice general pediatrics with subspecialists regarding their inquiring/screening and referring for psychosocial concerns. Physician and practice characteristics associated with these behaviors were examined. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using the 2013 American Academy of Pediatrics Periodic Survey of Fellows. Respondents included 304 pediatricians who exclusively practice general pediatrics and 147 subspecialists. The primary analysis compared the current practices of generalists vs. subspecialists with regard to inquiring/screening and referring children with 10 different psychosocial concerns. Covariates included socio-demographics, practice characteristics, and training experiences. Weighted univariate, bivariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Results Less than half of all pediatricians in the sample reported routinely inquiring/screening for most psychosocial concerns, and 2/3 of subspecialists failed to routinely inquire/screen for most of these conditions. Pediatricians who practice general pediatrics exclusively were more likely to inquire/screen (incident rate ratio (IRR) 1.41, p?<?.05) and refer (IRR 1.59, p?<?.001) for a greater number of psychosocial concerns than subspecialists, after adjusting for provider and practice characteristics. Having attended a child or adolescent mental health (MH) lecture/conference in the past 2 years was also related to inquiring/screening (IRR 1.24, p?<?.05). Conclusions Pediatricians infrequently inquire/screen and refer psychosocial concerns, with subspecialists addressing these concerns even less frequently.

     

Predicting career decisions in primary care medicine: a theoretical analysis

Entering the 1960s, more than half of the medical doctors in the United States were family physicians, pediatricians, or general internists. Today, about one-third of all U.S. physicians are primary care practitioners. Although opinions vary on the optimal ratio of primary care to specialty physicians, in the mid-1990s, the consensus among leaders in medicine was that more primary care physicians would be needed to ensure access to quality care. The target output of graduates was set for a minimum of 50% primary care physicians, and medical school admission committees responded. The present study examines research related to career decision making in primary care medicine. We address career decision making in primary care with the expectation that selection of a medical residency is based on multiple factors, and multivariate statistical techniques comprise the most appropriate statistical procedure for developing predictive models of medical student residency choice. Additional multivariate studies for simultaneous analysis of multiple dependent and multiple independent variables are needed to determine whether health policy planners and medical schools should continue to address the distribution of primary care physicians through medical school admissions. Further to enabling prediction, researchers must renew efforts to base investigations on theoretical models, summarizing and organizing previous research, and providing one another with means to focus future studies while building on previous work.     

The consultant family physician

Family physicians frequently consult and refer to other specialists, both generalist and subspecialist. Less commonly has the family physician been used as a consultant. A randomized questionnaire survey of family physicians in five midwestern states was used to consider the frequency and reasons for other specialists collaborating with the family physician as a consultant. Fifty percent of the respondents consult and refer to as well as receive consultations/referrals from other family physicians. Thirty-five percent of the respondents receive consultations and referrals from other generalist specialists, and 28 percent receive theirs from subspecialists. Most often these occur because the patient has no family physician, but family physicians are also used for their procedural skills and coordination of patient evaluation and management, including preoperative evaluation of patients. This study confirms that the consultant family physician is an important part of the health care team.     

Training and application of community-oriented primary care (COPC) through family medicine in Catalonia, Spain

The community-oriented primary care (COPC) approach, implemented in various countries by family physicians, general practitioners, and other primary care workers, integrates clinical medicine with aspects of public health. A process of 20 years of training health professionals (40-hour workshop) by the professional association of family physicians (Catalan Society of Family and Community Medicine), training family medicine residents and giving support to health teams in Catalonia, Spain, generated a present group of 30 primary care teams involved in community health projects. This paper describes and analyzes factors related to changes in the health system, the role of family medicine in Spain, and to features of the COPC approach and its training methods as elements that narrow the gap between training and practice.     

Results of the 2011 National Resident Matching Program: family medicine

The results of the 2011 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) reflect another small but promising increased level of student interest in family medicine residency training in the United States. Compared with the 2010 Match, family medicine residency programs filled 172 more positions (with 133 more US seniors) through the NRMP in 2011. In other primary care fields, 26 more primary care internal medicine positions filled (10 more US seniors), one more position in pediatrics-primary care (two fewer US seniors), and seven more positions in internal medicine-pediatrics programs (10 more US seniors). The 2011 NRMP results suggest a small increase in choosing primary care careers for the second year in a row; however, students continue to show an overall preference for subspecialty careers. Multiple forces continue to influence medical student career choices. Despite matching the highest number of US seniors into family medicine residencies since 2002, the production of family physicians remains insufficient to meet the current and anticipated need to support the nation's primary care infrastructure.     

Rural-urban differences in primary care physicians' practice patterns, characteristics, and incomes

CONTEXT: Low salaries and difficult work conditions are perceived as a major barrier to the recruitment of primary care physicians to rural settings. PURPOSE: To examine rural-urban differences in physician work effort, physician characteristics, and practice characteristics, and to determine whether, after adjusting for any observed differences, rural primary care physicians' incomes were lower than those of urban primary care physicians. METHODS: Using survey data from actively practicing office-based general practitioners (1,157), family physicians (1,378), general internists (2,811), or pediatricians (1,752) who responded to the American Medical Association's annual survey of physicians between 1992 and 2002, we used linear regression modeling to determine the association between practicing in a rural (nonmetropolitan) or urban (standard metropolitan statistical area) setting and physicians' annual incomes after controlling for specialty, work effort, provider characteristics, and practice characteristics. FINDINGS: Rural primary care physicians' unadjusted annual incomes were similar to their urban counterparts, but they tended to work longer hours, complete more patient visits, and have a much greater proportion of Medicaid patients. After adjusting for work effort, physician characteristics, and practice characteristics, primary care physicians who practiced in rural settings made $9,585 (5%) less than their urban counterparts (95% confidence intervals: -$14,569, -$4,602, P < .001). In particular, rural practicing general internists and pediatricians experienced lower incomes than did their urban counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing rural physicians' lower incomes, longer work hours, and greater dependence on Medicaid reimbursement may improve the ability to ensure that an adequate supply of primary care physicians practice in rural settings.     

Who is the family doctor? Relating primary care to family care

Many families receive care as intact family units. To determine which specialists provide this family care, a subset of families (N = 447) enrolled in the Rand Health Insurance Experiment were examined. Among families designating a single primary care physician, family physicians and general practitioners provided 65.9% to 89.7% of their family care. Internists provided 20.0% and 27.3% of family care for younger and older couples, respectively. The remaining specialties, including pediatrics and obstetrics-gynecology, each provided less than 5% of family care; these small proportions of family care may reflect the specialists' self-imposed limits in primary care roles. As family members matured, families used fewer pediatricians and obstetrician-gynecologists for primary care and concurrently increased their use of family physicians or general practitioners. Care for intact families is provided predominantly by family physicians or general practitioners, although in families without children, internists also play an important role. Self-defined limits in primary care roles by physicians in various specialties and the changing use of specialties during the family life cycle largely determined which specialties provided family care.     

Why pregnancy care should be an essential part of family medicine training

Some family medicine educators are arguing to eliminate pregnancy care as a required component of family medicine training since the majority of family physicians no longer perform deliveries, and many programs are having increasing difficulties in meeting this training requirement. The primary benefit of pregnancy care training is not to produce family physicians who all perform deliveries but to produce family physicians who are competent to provide comprehensive primary care to women and girls, including routine and preventive reproductive care. The training in pregnancy care helps to differentiate family medicine residencies from other primary care training programs by facilitating competency in a wide range of reproductive health care for nonpregnant women and for the primary nonreproductive health care of pregnant and postpartum women. Residencies offering pregnancy care services also enhance their ability to train residents in child care. Family medicine should continue to strive to improve this aspect of residency training instead of abandoning it.     

Family physicians and general internists: do they treat hypertensive patients differently?

This study compared 51 San Francisco Bay Area family physicians and 47 general internists in their treatment of hypertensive patients. Charts from 2254 patients of these physicians were reviewed. The average age and percentage of board certification of both groups of physicians are similar. Patients of general internists were slightly older than the family practice patients (average age 61 vs 59 years). The general internists saw significantly fewer patients per hour (3.0) than the family physicians (3.6). Family physicians were more likely to employ a registered nurse (33%) than were general internists (17%), and family physicians were twice as likely to delegate patient education to office staff than were the general internists. The mean number and kinds of antihypertensive medications prescribed were similar. Internists did more laboratory testing, but the difference was not statistically significant. General internists were more likely to change medication when their patients' blood pressure was uncontrolled than were family physicians (in 60% vs 40% of patients, P = .02), and they were also more likely to recall uncontrolled patients within 3 months than were family physicians (50% vs 35% of patients, P = .05). There was no significant difference in mean diastolic blood pressure or in hypertension-related behaviors, such as medication adherence, aerobic exercise, alcohol consumption, or amount of dietary salt, between the two patient groups; however, over 35% of patients of both groups had elevated blood pressure readings despite taking medications. Overall, there were more similarities than differences in the care physicians provided. Efforts to change physician performance in the treatment of hypertensive patients are still warranted and equally applicable to both groups.