Received from the Group Health Center for Health Studies (EBL), Seattle, Wash; University of Washington Harborview Medical Center (SDF), Seattle, Wash; University of Texas Southwestern (LMK), Dallas, Tex; University of Toronto (WL), Toronto, Ontario, Canada; The Southwestern Montana Clinic (RVL), Dillon, Mont; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (ER), Boston, Mass; United Health Care (LS), Minneapolis, Minn; University of California (SS), San Francisco, Calif; UCLA Medical Center (NW), Los Angeles, Calif; and Emory University (MW), Atlanta, Ga.
The Future of General Internal Medicine
Report and Recommendations from the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) Task Force on the Domain of General Internal Medicine
Version of Record online: 28 JAN 2004
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Volume 19, Issue 1, pages 69–77, January 2004
How to Cite
Larson, E. B., Fihn, S. D., Kirk, L. M., Levinson, W., Loge, R. V., Reynolds, E., Sandy, L., Schroeder, S., Wenger, N. and Williams, M. (2004), The Future of General Internal Medicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19: 69–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.31337.x
The longer version of this report is available at http://www.sgim.org/futureofGIM.pdf.
Members of SGIM Task Force on the Domain of General Internal Medicine: Eric B. Larson, MD, MPH—Chair; Ronald V. Loge, MD; Eileen Reynolds, MD; Wendy Levinson, MD; Lynne M. Kirk, MD; Mark Williams, MD; Neil Wenger, MD, MPH; Steven Schroeder, MD; Stephan D. Fihn, MD, MPH—Special Consultant; Lewis Sandy, MD, MBA—Special Consultant; Martin Shapiro, MD, PhD—SGIM President (2002–03); Judy Ann Bigby, MD-SGIM President (2003–04).
- Issue online: 28 JAN 2004
- Version of Record online: 28 JAN 2004
- primary care;
- medical education;
- physician payment;
The Society of General Internal Medicine asked a task force to redefine the domain of general internal medicine. The task force believes that the chaos and dysfunction that characterize today's medical care, and the challenges facing general internal medicine, should spur innovation. These are our recommendations: while remaining true to its core values and competencies, general internal medicine should stay both broad and deep—ranging from uncomplicated primary care to continuous care of patients with multiple, complex, chronic diseases. Postgraduate and continuing education should develop mastery. Wherever they practice, general internists should be able to lead teams and be responsible for the care their teams give, embrace changes in information systems, and aim to provide most of the care their patients require. Current financing of physician services, especially fee-for-service, must be changed to recognize the value of services performed outside the traditional face-to-face visit and give practitioners incentives to improve quality and efficiency, and provide comprehensive, ongoing care. General internal medicine residency training should be reformed to provide both broad and deep medical knowledge, as well as mastery of informatics, management, and team leadership. General internal medicine residents should have options to tailor their final 1 to 2 years to fit their practice goals, often earning a certificate of added qualification (CAQ) in special generalist fields. Research will expand to include practice and operations management, developing more effective shared decision making and transparent medical records, and promoting the close personal connection that both doctors and patients want. We believe these changes constitute a paradigm shift that can benefit patients and the public and reenergize general internal medicine.