ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2014
The future of general medicine.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolving practice of general internal medicine in the current medical landscape.Internal medicine journal · 2026Review
- Generalism and specialism within medicine: a viewpoint from internal medicine training and perspective on the challenges of enthusing undergraduate UK medical students.Future healthcare journal · 2024Article
- Why should we continue to do acute general takes?Future hospital journal · 2016Article
- Geriatric medicine and geriatricians in the UK. How they relate to acute and general internal medicine and what the future might hold?Future hospital journal · 2016Article
- The future of general medicine.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is a truth universally acknowledged that there is a problem with general medicine. Physicians have become increasingly specialised over the past 30 years or so, and specialist care has produced increasingly better outcomes for some patients. The patients left behind are looked after by general medicine, where demand is increasing, operational priority within hospitals is low, there is little professional kudos and recruitment is suffering. Three recent reports - Hospitals on the Edge?, the Future Hospital Commission report, and the Shape of Training report - have described the problems, but not articulated compelling solutions. Here, I discuss what is good about general medicine, what is bad and make suggestions for improvement. These involve getting specialities to take responsibility for care of appropriate admissions automatically and without delay, giving general physicians control over the service that they provide, and using well-chosen financial drivers to support movement in the right direction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.