•••quote:•••Originally posted by ussdfiant:
•I thought that this trail would be well worn, but a quick search proved fruitless. What exactly can an internist do that a family practitioner cannot do and vice versa? Is ob the only difference?•••••The lines separating the two are frequently blurred. As the name implies, family practice physicians seek to achieve true "continuity of care" -- that is, treating the patient on the long term. This includes infants, children, and adults (i.e., the family). The scope of family practice includes pediatrics, ob/gyn, and adult medicine. A well-rounded family physician can address many of the needs of this patient population. Their patients also end up in the hospital, so their scope of practice isn't limited to the doctor's office either.
Traditionally, internists usually deal with adult medicine. Some are hospitalists, but most have some sort of office-based practice. Often times internists open up office-based practices and see children as well.
But, to address your question specifically, I can't think of anything that an FP can do that an internist can't and vice versa. One may have more experience than the other at certain things, and then there's the ethical question of whether one should be doing certain things (e.g., should an FP with little plastics and surgical experience be removing a suspicious mole from a patient's face? Should an internist be performing prenatal care?). Additionally, I haven't heard of FPs going on to do fellowships as internists do (but I can't say for certain). Moreover, I don't know if an FP can sit for the IM boards and vice versa.
You just have to think of what your ideal scope of practice will be. After you establish what you would like to do, what is the best way to achieve that and how will you best serve your patients?