When I use a word . . . Hospitalists—advantages and disadvantages

Hospitalist programmes, initially introduced in the USA in the 1990s, have spread to other countries, including Canada, Australia, Germany, Israel, New Zealand, South Korea, and Switzerland, among others, and it has been suggested that such a programme should be initiated in the UK. The definition of a hospitalist will depend on the nature of the healthcare system in which a hospitalist programme operates. With UK clinical practice in mind, I suggest the following definition of a hospitalist, if such an individual were to practice in the UK: <b>hospitalist</b><i>n</i>. a medically qualified practitioner, typically trained both as a physician and in a specialty that deals with general medical problems, such as paediatrics, geriatrics, intensive care, or clinical pharmacology, who is appointed to attend to patients requiring medical care, initially in hospital but later extending to their outpatient care after they are discharged into the community; the activities of a hospitalist can optionally extend to teaching, research, and medical leadership roles. [hospital <i>n</i>.+-ist <i>suffix</i> &lt;<b>Old French</b> hospital, &lt;medieval Latin hospitāle, a place of reception for guests, &lt;Latin hospes, a host or a guest] The evidence from many clinical studies, mostly conducted in the USA, is that hospitalist programmes are associated with reduced lengths of patient stay, with the same or reduced costs, and improved patient and doctor satisfaction. However, the quality of many studies is poor, and a pilot study in the UK would be advisable if hospitalists were to be introduced here.