Stephen E. Radecki

A National Study of Internal Medicine and Its Specialties: I. An Overview of the Practice of Internal Medicine

A nationwide study of 24 medical and surgical specialties has been conducted by the University of Southern California School of Medicine, Division of Research in Medical Education. This article is the first in a series reporting findings for general internal medicine and 10 subspecialties of internal medicine. Populations for these 11 specialties are defined and enumerated, and the specialties are compared in terms of demographic and geographic distribution. Practice comparisons are presented based on characteristics such as workload, allocation of professional time, location of encounters with patients, distribution of primary problem diagnoses, and projections of annual patient encounters. Forthcoming specialty-specific articles will present highly detailed information for general internal medicine and for the subspecialties of cardiology, gastroenterology, pulmonary disease, allergy, hematology, endocrinology, nephrology, medical oncology, rheumatology, and infectious diseases.

The Relative Complexity of Primary Care Provided by Medical Specialists

Utilizing national data on patient care provided by family practitioners, general internists, and subspecialists in internal medicine, this study examines the complexity of care provided by generalist physicians versus subspecialty physicians on a disease-specific basis. Limiting the analysis to “principal care” provided by office-based physicians, the study finds the complexity of care provided by cardiologists for heart disease and by endocrinologists for diabetes mellitus to be somewhat greater than that provided by family practitioners and general internists, though the magnitude of the differences is not large. For chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, however, pulmonary disease specialists are shown to provide care that is substantially more complex than that provided by their generalist colleagues. For all diseases and specialties, hospital care is substantially more complex than ambulatory care.

Case-Mix and Treatment in End-Stage Renal Disease: Hemodialysis v Peritoneal Dialysis

The University of Southern California School of Medicine conducted a nationwide survey of 336 nephrologists to obtain demographic and clinical data on 6,411 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Patient demographic data, along with ESRD etiology and comorbid conditions noted by the physician, were compared across various modalities of dialysis. Characteristics of the treatment provided were differentiated by the mode of dialysis and the location of the patient encounter. Results of the analysis show that patients on peritoneal dialysis are more likely to be female and have higher rates of diabetes compared with hemodialysis (HD) patients. Statistically, patients on intermittent peritoneal dialysis are older, more likely to be black, and have a higher incidence of cardiovascular conditions. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients have greatest problem severity and require more physician time and more complex services, whereas home HD patients require the greatest number of diagnostic tests and therapeutic procedures. Hospital inpatient care shows greater case-mix severity and more intensive treatment, but this does not differ by the mode of dialysis. Finally, patients of freestanding dialysis facilities are more likely to have hypertensive renal disease, whereas patients at hospital-based facilities are older, more likely to be seen in the hospital, have more urgent and severe problems during dialysis rounds, and require more physician time, more complex services, and more diagnostic tests and therapeutic procedures.

End-Stage Renal Disease and the Practice of Nephrology

Data from a national survey of 336 nephrologists who provide dialysis care on capitation reimbursement show differences in practice activity associated with the proportion of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). On the average, ESRD patients account for 53% of patients seen by these physicians. Nephrologists who have the majority of their visits with ESRD patients average more than 120 patient encounters per week, approximating the practice workloads of primary care physicians. Nephrologists spend comparable amounts of time providing treatment for ESRD and non-ESRD patients in the same settings, schedule additional office visits for facility dialysis patients, and provide treatment and advice for problems not related to dialysis. Whereas care for acute renal failure patients is primarily based on consultations and involves a narrow focus, treatment for ESRD involves the provision of comprehensive primary medical care by nephrologists to their patients being treated with dialysis.