 |
|
Characteristics and Work Experiences of Hospitalists in the United States
Timothy H. Hoff, PhD;
Winthrop F. Whitcomb, MD;
Kevin Williams, PhD;
John R. Nelson, MD;
Rae Ann Cheesman, BA
Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:851-858.
ABSTRACT
| |
Background Little is known about the personal characteristics, work-related attitudes,
or professional experiences of hospitalists. In considering the future of
hospital medicine as a viable career choice for physicians (primarily, internists),
these issues should be examined in a systematic fashion. Learning more about
hospitalists and their work can enhance dialogue about the advantages and
shortcomings of such a career from the perspective of the individual physician.
Methods A self-administered mail survey was sent to 820 hospitalists who are
dues-paying members of the National Association of Inpatient Physicians and
who spend 50% or more of their time doing clinical work, teaching, or research
related to hospital medicine. Attitudes about topics such as job-related burnout
and job satisfaction were tapped, as well as information about different professional
and social experiences. The analyses were performed using descriptive statistics
and analysis of variance techniques.
Results Analysis was based on 393 responses (48% response rate). Results show
hospitalists to be a group of younger, mostly male, early-career individuals
with high levels of job satisfaction and autonomy, low levels of burnout,
and a long-term commitment to remaining in the role. Hospital medicine is
a source of positive social and professional work experiences related to interactions
with physician peers, patients and their families, and nonphysician hospital
coworkers. Key components of hospitalists' jobs, practices, and workload are
coalescing. However, certain developments, such as changing patterns of compensation
and the enlisting of more general internists and women as hospitalists, merit
further examination.
Conclusions The results offer insight into the physicians who are becoming hospitalists,
the jobs and settings in which they work, and how hospitalists experience
their everyday work lives. Valuable baseline data are provided for assessment
of attitudes, such as burnout, that should be examined regularly in this fledgling
group. This study complements research looking at the performance-related
outcomes of hospitalists, and it can be used by various stakeholders to better
understand and assess the long-term potential of what is being proposed as
a new career path.
INTRODUCTION
THE FIELD of hospital medicine continues to grow. It is estimated that
there are approximately 4000 physicians practicing as hospitalists in the
United States. Yet, little is known about the individuals who are hospitalists,
and even less is known about the sociological aspects of the role. The only
systematic data on hospitalists come from a survey conducted in 1997, which
provided descriptive information about the demographic, clinical, and financial
aspects of hospitalist work.1 These data showed
that most hospitalists were general internists, at early stages in their medical
careers, men, in the role for only a short time, compensated by salary, and
employed by medical groups or hospitals. Almost all were satisfied with their
current positions, and more than three quarters intended to be hospitalists
3 years into the future. It is useful to update some of these descriptive
findings based on our 1999 findings, as 2 years is a significant length of
time, given the growth and brief existence of this fledgling specialty movement.
For example, it is estimated that the number of hospitalists in the United
States has doubled since 1997. More important, however, is gaining a sense
for the first time of how hospitalists are experiencing their everyday roles.
These experiences are reflected through key work-related attitudes such as
burnout and job satisfaction, as well as perceptions related to the more social,
collegial, and professional aspects of hospital medicine. None of these attitudes,
except job satisfaction, have been explored in the literature. Of secondary
interest related to how the field is evolving is how individuals newer to
the hospitalist role compare with more-veteran hospitalists. What are the
similarities between these 2 groups? What are some key differences? The present
study explores these issues in detail.
PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS
SURVEY
An 87-item, self-administered survey was mailed during the fall of 1999
to 820 hospitalists who pay dues as members of the National Association of
Inpatient Physicians (NAIP). The NAIP is the recognized professional association
for hospitalists in the United States. Its mission is to be "the leading resource
and voice for hospitalists and their patients" through dedication to "promoting
excellence and efficiency in clinical care and advancing the practice of inpatient
medicine."2 For this study, hospitalists are defined as physicians spending 50% or more of their
time engaged in the practice of general hospital medicine, or in research
and education related to general hospital medicine. This definition differs
from that of the 1997 survey, in which hospitalists were defined as spending
at least 25% of their time caring for the hospitalized patients of primary
care physicians.1 However, the definition of
a hospitalist used for the present study is almost identical to the recently
adopted official NAIP definition.3 Thus, the
individuals responding to the present survey are an accurate reflection of
practitioners in the field of hospital medicine now as defined formally by
its professional association. Differences between the 1997 and 1999 surveys
in this regard do not necessarily render informal comparisons between the
2 sets of respondents problematic. Rather, the result is a more accurate comparison
of hospitalists in 1997 and 1999 who were most committed to the field (as
evidenced by their membership in its professional association) and who met
the official definition of "hospitalist" put forth by the NAIP during that
particular time.
The study protocol was approved by the University at Albany, State University
of New York Institutional Review Board, during the spring of 1999. To maximize
survey response rates, several strategies were used. First, 2 survey mailings
were conducted 3 weeks apart. A postcard reminder was sent to all nonrespondents
approximately 1 month after the second survey mailing. Accompanying the surveys
were 2 separate cover letters. The first was from the NAIP, signed by the
1999 copresidents (W.F.W. and J.R.N.). The second was from the Department
of Health Policy, Management, and Behavior, University at Albany (signed by
T.H.H. and K.W.). Each letter outlined the purpose and importance of the study
from practical and academic perspectives. No incentives of any kind were used
as inducements to complete and return the survey. The survey was divided into
5 major sections. In the order in which they appeared on the survey, they
focused on (1) current perceptions of professional and social experiences
in the hospitalist role, (2) job-related burnout, (3) motivations and realizations
related to being a hospitalist, (4) specific aspects of the particular hospitalist
job, and (5) demographic and nonwork (family and other) information. Several
well-established psychological measures were used to examine feelings of job
satisfaction, burnout, autonomy, and motivations for becoming a hospitalist.4-5 An appendix (available from the authors)
lists some of the variable measures used, their operational definitions, and
specific survey items. Reliabilities (Cronbach  ) for all multi-item
measures used in the analysis ranged from 0.60 to 0.95, which is a generally
acceptable range for measures used in the behavioral sciences.6
Several questions sought information on how hospitalists experienced
the sociological aspects of their work and employment setting. For example,
respondents were asked the extent to which they felt recognized by important
stakeholder groups for their contributions, a part of supportive and close-knit
work and peer groups, and able to achieve desired relationships with patients
(appendix, available from the authors). Most measures used consisted of multi-item
statements that were based on a Likert scale, with responses ranging from
"strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Questions about job and personal
characteristics were largely open-ended or limited to 3 or 4 response categories.
Emphasis in these sections of the survey was on understanding how hospitalists'
jobs and practices were structured, their compensation systems, demographic
backgrounds in terms of medical training and nonwork activities, and their
intent to remain in the role.
PARTICIPANTS
The initial sampling frame consisted of 820 individuals. From these,
393 usable surveys were obtained, for a response rate of 48%. This response
rate compares favorably with those of surveys of other physician groups, and
is higher than the 39% response rate of bona fide hospitalists who responded
in a timely fashion to the 1997 NAIP survey.1
Overall, 399 surveys were returned in the present survey. However, 6 respondents
did not meet the criterion of 50% of time spent as a hospitalist, as indicated
by their response to a specific question on the survey, and thus were excluded
from the analysis. An analysis of nonrespondents by physician medical specialty,
ethnicity, and sex revealed minimal differences (<5% for each variable)
between survey respondents and the initial 820 individuals, indicating similarity
in demographic characteristics.
DATA ANALYSIS
Results were obtained using descriptive statistics and analysis of variance
techniques with commercially available software (SPSS version 8.0; SPSS Inc,
Chicago, Ill). There was no multicolinearity observed among the variables.
Means, SDs, and percentages were calculated for all variables included in
the study. Simple means tests and 1-way analysis of variance were also used,
especially in comparing newer vs more-established hospitalists. t Tests were used to determine the statistical significance of any
observed differences. For the 1-way analysis of variance, a modified Bonferroni
post hoc comparison was used to control for experimental error. This applies
a more stringent significance test to account for all mean comparisons occurring
between 2 variables with multiple categories.7
When comparing percentages rather than means across the newer vs more-established
hospitalists, the  2 test was used to assess the statistical
significance of observed differences.
RESULTS
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HOSPITALISTS
Approximately three quarters of respondents were men trained in general
internal medicine (Table 1). The
mean age was 40 years. However, almost one third of the group were 35 years
or younger, and fewer than 10% were 50 years or older. More than one quarter
of hospitalists had completed their residencies within the past 5 years. Almost
half had been in hospitalist roles for 2 years or less, compared with 15%
who had been in the role for more than 5 years. Time spent in the present
job was similar to an individual's total tenure in the hospitalist role, as
most hospitalists had been in their current jobs for 2 years or less. Job
stability is discerned, however, in the fact that respondents who had been
hospitalists for more than 3 years also had been in their current job for
a mean 4 years. Respondents spent the bulk of their weekly work time
in the hospitalist role. Forty percent spent 100% of their monthly work time
(not including time when they were on call) in patient care as hospitalists,
while another 22% spent between 90% and 100% of their weekly time in patient
care. Thus, just less than three quarters of the group spent almost all of
their work time engaged in patient care, as opposed to a combination of patient
care, research, and education related to hospital medicine, as put forth by
the NAIP in its definition of a hospitalist. The most strongly held motivation
among respondents for becoming a hospitalist was the intellectual stimulation
and enjoyment that came from practicing hospital medicine. Secondary motivations
included the chance to be involved in an emerging specialty and being able
to have a job with predictable hours and lifestyle. Respondents indicated
that limited alternative employment opportunities were not a driving force
in their decision to become a hospitalist.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Key Personal Characteristics of Practicing Hospitalists*
|
|
|
JOB CHARACTERISTICS OF HOSPITALISTS
Hospitals and medical groups employed more than two thirds of respondents
(Table 2). Only about 1 in 10
hospitalists classified himself or herself as self-employed. Regardless of
who the employer was, mean practice sizes were similar, except for hospitalist
practices in managed care organizations, which were significantly larger than
practices in any of the other settings (P<.05
for all comparisons between managed care organizations and other settings).
The mean duration of practice establishment was slightly less than 4 years,
regardless of the type of employer (hospital or medical group). In terms of
workload and scheduling, most respondents worked in a system in which hospitalists
performed daily patient rounds and were available off-hours by beeper paging.
Shift scheduling, in which a hospitalist is on site around-the-clock, was
less prevalent. Half of all respondents said that they spent more than 20
hours per week on call. Specific workloads for hospitalists were investigated
by asking them how many new admissions and consultations they experienced
per month. Four of 10 stated that they personally admitted or consulted on
more than 60 new patients per month. For 2 of 10, this figure was 90 or more
per month. Although neither of these workload aspects varied significantly
by the major types of employer, self-employed hospitalists appeared to spend
more hours per week on call and to admit more patients per month than did
hospitalists who worked as employees in medical groups, hospitals, or managed
care organizations (Table 3).
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Key Job Characteristics of Practicing Hospitalists*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Comparison of Workload by Major Employer Categories*
|
|
|
The mean annual compensation for the respondent group was approximately
$141 000. However, only 20% of respondents said that they earned less
than $120 000 per year as hospitalists. The biggest difference in compensation
was seen between male and female respondents, with the former earning a mean
$22 000 more per year ($146 400 vs $124 600; P<.001). In addition, hospitalists who were compensated through
a fixed salary generally earned between $10 000 and $30 000 less
per year than did individuals who were paid through other means, such as salary
plus a performance incentive, capitation, or fee-for-service. Self-employed
hospitalists earned significantly more annually than did individuals working
as employees in hospitals, medical groups, or managed care organizations (P<.01 for all differences). These differences ranged
from $28 000 to $34 000 per year. All of these compensation differences
(men vs women, fixed salary vs other means of compensation, and self-employed
vs employee) persisted even after controlling for several aspects of workload,
such as number of new admissions and consults per month, hours spent on call
per week, and time spent practicing hospital medicine per week. Thus, the
compensation differences did not appear to be a function of differences in
workload between the various groups. Notably, almost three quarters of respondents
reported that none of their annual compensation was linked to financial incentives.
Slightly more than 3% reported more than a quarter of their income was tied
to such incentives. Furthermore, although those whose income was linked to
financial incentives earned a mean $11 000 more per year than did others,
this difference was not statistically significant (P
= .06). These findings imply that financial incentives do not at present create
large compensation differentials among hospitalist physicians.
THE PROFESSIONAL AND SOCIAL EXPERIENCES OF HOSPITALISTS
A high degree of job satisfaction was endemic to survey respondents.
More than half could be classified as "highly satisfied" and another third
as "satisfied" (Table 4). Related
to the prevalence of job satisfaction, the survey group had high perceived
levels of clinical autonomy, widespread beliefs that their initial expectations
for entering the field had already been met, and an absence of job-related
burnout. Only 13% of respondents could be classified as burned out. However,
an additional 25% of responding hospitalists indicated levels of physical,
emotional, and mental exhaustion that placed them in the "at risk" category.
Only 1 in 5 respondents thought that their initial expectations for the hospitalist
role had not yet been met. Fewer than 3% indicated an unsatisfactory level
of autonomy in their everyday work. Given the widespread prevalence of these
positive work-related attitudes, it is no surprise that almost two thirds
of respondents said that they would still be doing hospitalist work 7 years
from now.
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Key Work-Related Attitudes of Practicing Hospitalists*
|
|
|
Most individuals also appeared to be having favorable experiences in
the hospitalist role. More than half of all respondents believed that they
worked within a hospitalist group containing high levels of camaraderie and
solidarity, while 75% believed that their immediate work group (multidisciplinary
group of nurses, social workers, and other individuals working on a particular
ward or hospital floor) functioned effectively and cooperatively in providing
care to patients. With respect to their patients, almost all respondents believed
that they were able to provide them with complete care within the inpatient
setting. Complete care was defined by statements
such as "I feel I can treat the whole patient in my hospitalist job" and "I
can address a broad range of problems when treating patients in my hospitalist
job." Furthermore, 4 of 5 respondents felt properly recognized for their work
by patients and the families of patients. This recognition involved "expressions
of gratitude" and "getting credit" for the services provided during the course
of their everyday work.
UPDATING NAIP SURVEY DATA
Some informal comparisons can be drawn between these data and those
of the 1997 survey conducted by Lindenauer et al.1
Similarities include respondents' mean young age, early to mid medical career
points, newness to the hospitalist role, high levels of satisfaction, and
intent to remain in the field for at least 3 years into the future (Table 5). In addition, the mean compensation
is similar between the 1997 and 1999 respondents, although the 1997 group's
was slightly higher. This is despite the fact that the 1997 survey had a broader
definition of hospitalist that included physicians spending less time (as
little as 25%) practicing inpatient medicine. A comparison of the 2 sets of
survey results shows several emerging differences among the 1999 respondents,
including a growing differential between male and female hospitalist compensation,
larger percentages of the field composed of general internists and female
physicians, more individuals employed by hospitals, and a declining prevalence
of financial incentives tied to compensation among the 1999 survey respondents.
Direct comparisons between the 2 sets of survey results should be viewed with
caution, given their different definitions of a hospitalist. However, these
observations are useful because they focus our attention on potentially important
areas to explore in more detail as this field evolves further.
|
|
|
|
Table 5. Informal Comparisons Between 1999 and 1997 NAIP Survey Respondents*
|
|
|
COMPARING NEWER AND MORE-ESTABLISHED HOSPITALISTS
Evolution of the hospitalist field was also examined within the 1999
survey by comparing characteristics of individuals newer to the role with
those of more-established hospitalists (Table 6). Three years was selected as the cutoff point for defining new and more-established hospitalists
for 2 reasons: (1) individuals in the role for less than 3 years arguably
define the present and near-future expansion of the field of hospital medicine
and (2) a 3-year cutoff yielded 2 relatively equivalent groups in terms of
numbers of respondents, which facilitated performing means tests on various
comparison variables. Perhaps the most meaningful difference observed is that
hospitalists within the field for less than 3 years earned significantly less
than did their counterparts with longer tenure (mean difference of $14 000; P<.001). This was despite the fact that the 2 groups,
on average, were similar in numbers of hours worked, types of employment,
workload, and hours per week on call. Although the shorter-tenured group had
a larger percentage of female hospitalists and individuals compensated through
fixed salary (2 variables associated with decreased compensation), controlling
for both did not render insignificant the difference observed between the
2 tenure groups. One might also reasonably assume that more-established hospitalists
might get paid more because they have been with their employer significantly
longer (a mean of almost 3 years longer) than those in the field for 3 years
or less. However, an examination of bivariate correlations revealed no association
between positional tenure and compensation among respondents that could account
for the observed difference.
|
|
|
|
Table 6. Select Comparisons by Tenure in the Hospitalist Role (1999
NAIP Survey Only)*
|
|
|
Several other differences were noted between newer and more-established
hospitalists. Eight percent more of the shorter-tenured group are women, although
this difference is not statistically significant (P
= .09). In addition, 9% more of the newcomers are general internists (P = .048). Regarding work-related attitudes, physicians
in the hospitalist role for less than 3 years report mean lower levels of
clinical autonomy in their work (P = .048), although
high levels of job satisfaction and low levels of burnout exist among both
groups of hospitalists. A smaller percentage of the shorter-tenured group
also indicated that they would still be doing hospitalist work more than 7
years into the future (P = .03). However, despite
this difference, almost half of each group indicated that they would still
be hospitalists in 10 years. Thus, longevity in the field is a common desire
of newer and more-established hospitalists.
COMMENT
The results presented herein illuminate key characteristics of hospitalists.
They also provide the first systematic information, to our knowledge, about
how these individuals experience the professional and social aspects of their
work. In general, most hospitalists responding to the survey were at early
stages in their medical careers, men, trained in general internal medicine,
and relatively new to the field of hospital medicine. One third of the respondent
group was 35 years or younger, which is slightly more than the 25% of general
internists nationally who are 35 years or younger.8
Most respondents provided full-time patient care in their hospitalist role,
conformed to a daily patient rounding schedule, practiced within small groups
of hospitalists, worked as employees, were compensated through straight salary
or salary with a performance incentive, and did not face pressures of financial
incentives in their everyday work. The group, in general, was satisfied with
their work and experienced high levels of autonomy and low levels of burnout.
The 13% of respondents who were classified as "burned out" based on
their survey results is less than the 40% to 60% seen in fields such as critical
care and emergency medicine.9-11
However, the relative newness of many physicians to the hospitalist role suggests
that a comparison with burnout in similar specialties should be reserved until
the field has achieved more longevity, as a whole. Although a group with many
newcomers, more than three quarters of hospitalists already believed that
their original expectations for assuming the role had been met or exceeded.
Their positive attitudes about work are consistent with the finding that almost
two thirds of respondents intended to be practicing hospital medicine 7 years
from the time of the survey. In addition, hospitalists also reported having
favorable social and professional experiences in the field. Perhaps surprisingly,
almost all respondents believed they could provide complete care to their
patients. This meant having the chance to treat a broad range of problems
that extended beyond the major acute problems presented by patients. Most
respondents also perceived a high degree of solidarity with their local practice
group and appropriate recognition by patients and their families for the work
that they do.
There are limitations to the study. First, those surveyed were members
of the NAIP and not the entire universe of practicing hospitalists in the
United States. Undoubtedly, there are many physicians who could be classified
as hospitalists who do not belong to the NAIP. Whether these individuals look
at, think about, or experience their roles differently from NAIP members is
a valid empirical question. Even within the NAIP, this survey included only
those individuals who were paying members and who fit our working definition
of a hospitalist. Members of the NAIP who did not complete the survey may
also differ from those who did. Despite these limitations, the present survey
includes those physicians who are committed to a career in hospital medicine.
It is impossible to include all those considering themselves hospitalists,
given that there is no systematic way to identify them for purposes of completing
and returning a survey. Thus, this survey represents, to our knowledge, the
most updated and systematic source of information on hospitalists and their
work experiences.
A second limitation involves reliance in the survey on physician self-reporting
for several job-related questions related to workload, scheduling, type of
employer, and compensation. Ideally, it would be better to obtain this information
directly from employers or employee records because individuals sometimes
cannot accurately classify their work situations. Yet, when surveying a large
number of people, this is virtually impossible. Also, some questions on the
survey, because of the limited response categories, may not have captured
all of the relevant variations. However, the survey questions were carefully
developed through discussions between us, 2 of whom (W.F.W. and J.R.N.) are
practicing hospitalists, and several other hospitalists. In addition, questions
that measure various social and professional experiences, such as the level
of occupational or work group solidarity, rely on hospitalists' perceptions
instead of purely objective assessments. Yet, the psychological research that
has developed many of these concepts offers strong evidence that it is individuals'
perceptions of situations, more than anything else, that shape their attitudes
and behaviors.12 Finally, the survey did not
ask about the types of patients hospitalists serve (such as Medicaid vs private
insurance), the manner in which the particular hospitalist practice is used
by the hospital or medical group, or whether hospitalists are substituting
for or complementing other physicians already caring for inpatients. This
type of information could be important insofar as it is linked with how hospitalists
experience their jobs, including their levels of satisfaction and burnout,
as well as their perceptions of coworker support.
The findings of this study suggest that hospital medicine remains appealing
to younger physicians, drawing particularly from those trained in general
internal medicine.13 These individuals perceive
the role to be one offering an opportunity to engage in work that stimulates
them intellectually, as well as to obtain a well-paying job and a balanced
lifestyle. Positive attitudes such as job satisfaction remain as strongly
entrenched among the 1999 group as they were among the 1997 group. In addition,
job burnout does not appear to be a problem, although there is a moderate
percentage of hospitalists who could be classified as "at risk" for burnout.
Additional research should identify the types of factors that could cause
burnout. To our knowledge, this is the first examination of burnout among
hospitalists, and it offers baseline data for future investigation. Finally,
our findings did not support the suggestion that hospitalists are subject
to negative work experiences because hospital medicine is affected by the
need for greater organizational control over hospital admissions and lengths
of stay. Why hospitalists appear to have such favorable relationships with
coworkers, physician colleagues, and patients and their families, despite
the inherent tension associated with a clinical field driven at least in part
by managed care imperatives, merits further study.
Some of the differences observed between the 1997 and 1999 respondents
invite closer scrutiny, although they cannot yet be called "trends." Comparisons
between the 1997 and 1999 groups and between the newer and more-established
respondents in 1999 suggest that hospital medicine may be attracting more
general internists than in the past. As hospital medicine continues to evolve,
will it become even more appealing to general internists? Attracting disproportionate
numbers of general internists (as opposed to other primary care physicians
or subspecialists) may limit the clinical diversity of the field and tend
to stereotype it as the domain of one particular medical specialty. This might
have implications for the kinds of work hospitalists perform, the types of
patients cared for, and the manner in which best practices and quality clinical
outcomes in the field are defined. In internal medicine, this could potentially
increase tension and divisiveness within the specialty.14
In addition, the field appears to be attracting female physicians at a higher
rate than in the past. However, the 26% representation of women in the surveyed
group is less than the 34% of general internists nationally who are women.8 Thus, the increased presence of women in hospital
medicine may simply reflect the fact that more general internists are tending
to choose the field. In any event, the observed pay differential between male
and female hospitalists in this study should be explored in further detail,
especially because men and women appear to be working in similar types of
jobs with similar workloads.
At least one other key difference in compensation should be examined
closely. Individuals newer to the field in 1999 earned a mean of almost $14 000
less than did their more-established counterparts. This pay difference between
shorter- and longer-tenured individuals does not appear to be the result of
empirical differences alone, such as the longer-tenured group's having been
in their current jobs longer and earning more because of work experience or
seniority, being more frequently on call, working for different types of employers,
practicing longer hours, or comprising higher percentages of male hospitalists,
who earn more. It may be a product of larger economic forces. For example,
as various roles develop within competitive industries, such as health care,
there can be a decrease in individual compensation as the number of positions
available stabilizes or shrinks, concomitant with an increase in the number
of individuals available to fill these positions. Differences in compensation
method (straight salary vs salary plus performance incentives) may also be
relevant. Compared with other specialties, the mean annual compensation for
the 1999 survey respondents is $6000 less than that for general internal medicine,
$9000 more than general and family practice, $21 000 more than pediatrics,
and more than $50 000 less than emergency medicine.8
This study illuminates the characteristics and experiences of the group
of physicians called "hospitalists." Its unique examination of their experiences,
particularly those that reflect the sociological aspects of their everyday
work, provides a necessary complement to recent studies15-16
looking at performance-related outcomes of hospitalists in areas such as productivity,
quality of care, and patient satisfaction. Rather than examining performance,
this study has focused on the people who practice hospital medicine and their
work lives. In future research, however, this type of information should be
integrated with information on outcomes to provide a complete picture of the
hospitalist's work experience, including the individuals doing the work, the
organizations that employ them, and the patients served. It could also be
combined with information on how other physicians view and act toward hospitalists,
because relationships with nonhospitalist physician colleagues remain an important
variable speaking to the long-term role of these individuals in the medical
workplace. Hospitalists' personal experiences could also be compared and contrasted
with patient experiences. For example, although it is valuable to know that
hospitalists feel recognized for their work by patients and their families,
it would be useful to ask how patients see their relationships with the hospitalists
who serve them. For example, do they view these relationships as fundamentally
different from relationships they may have with their primary care physician?
A key issue that needs further study is whether the hospitalist disrupts,
in any way, existing relationships between patients and their primary care
physicians.
The information presented in this study provides baseline data that
can be compared with the findings of future surveys, which should be performed
to capture formally the early history of the hospitalist movement. These results
can be used by various stakeholders to better understand and assess the long-term
potential of what is proposed as a new career path in medicine.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Accepted for publication October 18, 2000.
This research was supported in part by the National Association of Inpatient
Physicians (NAIP), Philadelphia, Pa, and the University at Albany, State University
of New York.
We thank the staff at NAIP headquarters, without whose assistance we
would have not been able to conduct the survey. We also thank Peter Lindenauer,
MD, of Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass, who provided valuable feedback
and suggestions regarding aspects of survey design and content.
Corresponding author and reprints: Timothy J. Hoff, PhD, Department
of Health Policy, Management, and Behavior, University at Albany, State University
of New York, 1 University Pl, Rensselaer, NY 12144 (e-mail:
thoff{at}albany.edu).
From the Department of Health Policy, Management, and Behavior, University
at Albany, State University of New York (Drs Hoff and Williams and Ms Cheesman);
Inpatient Medicine Service, Mercy Hospital, Springfield, Mass (Dr Whitcomb);
and Hospital Internal Medicine, PA, Gainesville, Fla (Dr Nelson).
REFERENCES
| |
1. Lindenauer PK, Pantilat SZ, Katz PP, Wachter RM. Hospitalists and the practice of inpatient medicine: results of a survey
of the National Association of Inpatient Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:343-349.
FREE FULL TEXT
2. National Association of Inpatient Physicians Board of Directors. NAIP Web site. Available at: http://www.naiponline.org/about/mission.htm.
Accessed January 2001.
3. National Association of Inpatient Physicians. Definition of a hospitalist [editorial]. Hospitalist. 2000;4:3.
4. Cook JD, Hepworth SJ, Wall TD, Warr PB. The Experience of Work. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1981.
5. Pines A, Aronson E. Burnout: From Tedium to Personal Growth. New York, NY: Free Press, Division of Macmillan Publishing Co Inc;
1981.
6. Cohen J, Cohen P. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis
for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence A Erlbaum Associates; 1983.
7. Jaccard J, Becker MA, Wood G. Pairwise multiple comparison procedures: a review. Psychol Bull. 1984;96:589-596.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
8. American Medical Association. Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the
United States. Chicago, Ill: Center for Health Policy Research; 1999.
9. Goldberg R, Boss RW, Chan L, et al. Burnout and its correlates in emergency physicians: four years' experience
with a wellness booth. Acad Emerg Med. 1996;3:1156-1164.
ISI
| PUBMED
10. Fields AI, Cuerdon TT, Brasseux CO, et al. Physician burnout in pediatric critical care medicine. Crit Care Med. 1995;23:1425-1429.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
11. Gutupalli KK, Fromm RE. Burnout in the internist-intensivist. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22:625-630.
ISI
| PUBMED
12. Brown SP, Leigh TW. A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement,
effort and performance. J Appl Psychol. 1996;81:358-368.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
13. Nelson JR, Whitcomb WF. The hospitalist: how we've grown, where we're going. Today's Internist. September/October 1998:10-13.
14. Schroeder SA, Schapiro R. The hospitalist: new boon for internal medicine or retreat from primary
care? Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:382-387.
FREE FULL TEXT
15. Wachter RM, Katz P, Showstack J, Bindman AB, Goldman L. Reorganizing an academic medical service: impact on cost, quality,
patient satisfaction, and education. JAMA. 1998;279:1560-1565.
FREE FULL TEXT
16. Craig DE, Hartka L, Likosky WH, Caplan WM, Litsky P, Smithey J. Implementation of a hospitalist system in a large health maintenance
organization: the Kaiser Permanente experience. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:355-359.
FREE FULL TEXT
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Archives of Internal Medicine Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(6):897.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Employer or Coworker: Staffing Issues for Hospital-Based Physicians
J Oncol Pract 2006;2:97-98.
FULL TEXT
The Impact of Hospitalists on the Cost and Quality of Inpatient Care in the United States: A Research Synthesis
Coffman and Rundall
Med Care Res Rev 2005;62:379-406.
ABSTRACT
Hospitalists in the United States -- Mission Accomplished or Work in Progress?
Wachter
NEJM 2004;350:1935-1936.
FULL TEXT
What Is an Academic General Internist?: Career Options and Training Pathways
Levinson and Linzer
JAMA 2002;288:2045-2048.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
