What does this research indicate about trends for physician group practice?
The article “Physicians Moving to Mid-Sized, Single Specialty Practices” examines the new trend in healthcare practice. New group practices “are experienced in different regions” (Tollen, 2008, p. 4). The “number of solo physician practices has decreased significantly in the past few years” (Sultz & Young, 2011, p. 16).
We will write a custom Case Study on Physician Group Practice specifically for you
301 certified writers online
A study conducted by the Center for Studying Health System Change (CSHSC) indicates that more physicians are looking for employment. The other observation is that such physicians are working in groups of less than 50 practitioners. This situation shows clearly that a new model has emerged. This organizational model is making it easier for more physicians to offer quality care to their patients.
According to this data, medical practitioners are no longer practicing alone. This is the case because new groups have emerged. Such groups “are characterized by 6 to 50 physicians” (Tollen, 2008, p. 6). This organizational model is currently supporting the expectations of many patients.
Such groups have the potential to improve the level of collaboration. These physicians can interact with different caregivers in order to offer the best care. New reporting procedures have emerged in order to support the changing needs of different patients. This new trend “might not end any time soon” (Liebhaber & Grossman, 2007, p. 2).
More practitioners are joining different institutions in order to become more efficient. The number of “physicians in solo or duo practice has also decreased significantly” (Liebhaber & Grossman, 2007, p. 3). This development has led to the establishment of larger groups. These medical practitioners should work together as teams in order to support their patients.
According to Liebhaber and Grossman (2007, p. 4), “some forces such as financial issues and technological changes are encouraging more physicians to join different groups”. Such groups are producing effective health plans that can produce the best outcomes. Health Care Leaders encourage more physicians to join different mid-sized groups. Such groups can offer the best health support. However, such groups might be unable to offer charity care to different patients.
The provided data shows a decline in the number of solo practitioners in the United States. This trend has taken a unique shape from 1996 to 2005. Statistics show that more physicians are working together. The concept of managed care has also become common in different parts of the world. More physicians are forming multispecialty groups in order to support more patients.
Several reasons explain why this trend has become evident. For instance, more physicians are embracing new technologies and ideas. New efforts are required to offer quality patient care. Medical practitioners “are working hard in order to decrease the expenses associated with their practices” (Sultz & Young, 2011, p. 31). This model is also expected “to promote care coordination, medical reporting, and quality improvement” (Sultz & Young, 2011, p. 49).
Which types of specialties are most likely to continue in solo or duo practice?
The “Supplementary Table 1” shows how a number of specialties have continued in solo or duo practice. Some of these specialties include “dermatology, otolaryngology, neurology, gastroenterology, and pulmonology” (Liebhaber & Grossman, 2007, p. 7). The number of solo or duo practitioners in these specialties has not decreased significantly. It is agreeable that such physicians are unable to form new groups.
That being the case, such specialties will continue in duo or solo practice in the future. According to Tollen (2008), “solo and duo-physician practice is common in the United States”. The above specialties have continued in solo practice due to the nature of services availed to different patients.
Some specialties such as dermatology encourage more physicians to work alone (Tollen, 2008). This approach can support the health needs of different individuals. This is also the same case with neurology. That being the case, physicians in these specialties have been reluctant to join different groups. Such physicians are working in duo practice in order to offer personalized patient care.
On the other hand, some specialties are showing the strongest trends in forming different groups. Some of these specialties include Emergency Medicine (EM), Oncology, Cardiology, Urology, Pulmonology, Neurology, Gastroenterology, Orthopedics, and Ophthalmology (Tollen, 2008).
More physicians in these specialties are coming together in order to provide the best patient care. According to statistics, more physicians are coming together in order to offer evidence-based care to their patients. The “nature of these specialties supports the concept of collaborative practice” (Tollen, 2008, p. 13).
The establishment of such groups has made it easier for physicians to offer effective services. Such “physicians are able to implement the best quality improvement practices” (Sultz & Young, 2011, p. 64). Such physicians have implemented the best leadership practices.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
This approach has made it easier for more groups to achieve their potentials. Some specialties such as Family Medicine and Pediatrics are currently attracting a large number of physicians. These physicians are therefore providing quality care to more patients. In conclusion, more physicians are joining different groups in order to offer the best medical care. This trend is expected to continue in the coming years.
Liebhaber, A., & Grossman, J. (2007). Physicians Moving to Mid-Sized, Single-Specialty Practices. Retrieved from https://www.hschange.com/
Sultz, H., & Young, K. (2011). Health Care USA: Understanding its Organization and Delivery. Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Tollen, L. (2008). Physician Organization in Relation to Quality and Efficiency of Care: A Synthesis and Efficiency of Care: A Synthesis of Recent Literature. The Commonwealth Fund, 1(1), 1-40.