General practice—time for a new definition

I concur with Olesen et al (BMJ 320:354-7 [2000]) on the need to re-
define "general practice". In the US, general internists, general
paediatricians, and family physicians all practice as board-certified
generalist physicians. Additionally, physicians without specific training
as a genaralist can practice as a 'general practicitioner'.

This
discrepancy in training has contributed to a common view of the generalist
physician as less competent and less intelligent than their subspecialist
counterparts. It may require more than a redefinition of the specialty of
general practice, however, to correct this problem. I've proposed
elsewhere (J. Gen. Intern. Med. 14:205 [1999]) that the term
'comprehensivist' might more accurately reflect our training and role in
patient care than does 'generalist'. A proper definition, perhaps with a
new nomenclature, will go a long way in clarifying the unique training,
function, and practice of our discipline.