You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 168 No. 12, June 23, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Controversies in Internal Medicine
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related letter
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Medical Practice, Other
 •Quality of Care, Other
 •Prognosis/ Outcomes
 •Emergency Medicine
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati
What's this?

Rebuttal

Mark V. Williams, MD

Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(12):1259.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Quibbling over definitions instead of evaluating the evidence cannot conceal the growing and increasingly irrefutable evidence demonstrating that hospitalists deliver quality care and do it more cost-effectively than outpatient-based internists.1-2 Practicing outpatient internists also seem pleased with the evolution of hospitalists.3 As the fastest growing specialty in the history of health care, hospital medicine continues to evolve with multiple descriptions of various models in both academic and community settings now being published and more recent research showing hospitalists delivering higher quality care for common conditions requiring hospitalization. In addition, hospitalists also seem to be preferred academic educators in the hospital for both residents and medical students.4-5 Although some academicians continue to hold out, yearning for the good old days, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) now recognizes that hospital medicine deserves special recognition.6

No valid reason exists to continue debating whether hospitalists focused on improving . . . [Full Text of this Article]



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati     What's this?

RELATED LETTER

Hospitalist Care
Martin Terplan
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(2):205.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLES

Hospitalists and the Hospital Medicine System of Care Are Good for Patient Care
Mark V. Williams
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(12):1254-1256.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Hospitalist Inpatient System Does Not Improve Patient Care Outcomes
Robert M. Centor
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(12):1257-1258.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Rebuttal
Robert M. Centor
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(12):1260.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Hospitalist Care
Terplan
Arch Intern Med 2009;169:205-205.
FULL TEXT  

Tailoring Internal Medicine Training to Improve Hospitalist Outcomes
Glasheen and Cumbler
Arch Intern Med 2009;169:204-205.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.