Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2004;329:686 (18 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7467.686
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORThe editorial by Melis et al focuses on the difficulties the confusing terminology of intermediate care causes for researchers, opening with the statement that intermediate care is an emerging concept.1 The definitions quoted include terms such as transition from illness to recovery, chronic impairment, restoration of health, and complex needs, primarily with reference to elderly patients.
Intermediate care is nothing new. An amalgam of these definitions describes comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment and management of complex medical and functional problems. This is "good old fashioned" geriatric medicine, and intermediate care when properly funded and organised is indistinguishable from it.
To navel gaze about the definition of intermediate care and the nuances of comparing research in this area is essentially to ignore the real issue. The real issue is ensuring adequately resourced multidisciplinary care led by appropriately trained doctors, and as such the editorial misses an opportunity to make a bold
Lewis G Morrison, consultant physician in geriatric medicine
Roodlands Hospital, Haddington EH41 3PF