I expected a deluge of hate mail from the “cream skimmers” in response to my letter in the September BCMJ (2004;46:322) suggesting that the walk-in clinician’s per visit fee be reduced to allow for higher per visit GP fees. My ego was in pain when there appeared to be no reaction at all. I was therefore most grateful to read Dr J.R. Dale’s letter in the November BCMJ (2004;46:441-442) which attacked both me and my proposition.
I am unaware of any scientifically conducted study which compares the role of the walk-in clinician with that of the family doctor. That leaves me with anecdotal evidence only. I recall a young physician’s bragging to me that he had seen 60 patients in the walk-in clinic during one 5-hour session. I thought about the wonderful care that I receive from my GP who probably sees fewer than 20 patients in the same period of time and my interest was piqued.
I talked to a number of colleagues who, like Dr Dale, worked for years in family practice and then became walk-in clinicians. They were unanimous in one conclusion—that their financial reward/time-effort-worry rates had increased significantly.
I asked dozens of my referred patients for their views on the issues. Their most consistent response was that they attended a walk-in clinic for convenience when they regarded their problem as minor, but otherwise booked an appointment with their GP.
I agree with Dr Dale that there are good and bad walk-in clinics as well as good and bad family practices. I agree also that quality of care is the most important consideration. But, alas, these things cannot be controlled with a fee schedule. The problem which I intended to address in my September letter was the serious shortage of general practitioners. (I am fairly sure that there is no such shortage of walk-in clinics.) I must therefore repeat my proposition that walk-in clinic per visit fees be reduced and that the money saved be used to increase the per visit fee of the GP. Something has to be done to attract more family physicians and keep them in general practice.
—A. Krisman, MD
Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee
of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally
accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.
About the ICMJE and citation styles
The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.
An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.
BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:
- Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
- There is no period after the journal name.
- Page numbers are not abbreviated.
For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org