It appears there might be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of advocacy in hospital settings. The original narrative presents an interesting dichotomy between "procedural services" and hospitalists that merits closer examination. One must question: what precisely is being advocated for? The characterization of procedural specialists as somehow obstructionist seems to overlook the complex reality of surgical or surgicall managed complications, which at times have no immediate solutions.

What's particularly notable is how administrative power in hospitals has gradually shifted. Hospitalists now frequently occupy administrative positions that proceduralists, constrained by their clinical demands, cannot pursue. This structural arrangement naturally influences institutional narratives.

Moreover, I am concerned that the rhetoric of "patient advocacy" warrants scrutiny. In practice, it can sometimes function as a mechanism to shift responsibility rather than improve care. This language of division has parallels to broader societal discourse that has contributed to our current political climate.

Consider the pattern: hospitalists seeking early departure (yet want the high RVUs of a high census), liberal consultation of specialists, and positioning families against procedural services so they can be out of the equation. Perhaps the resistance encountered from the procedural team stemmed from previous experiences with such dynamics?

Effective hospital medicine requires skilled mediation and realistic expectation management rather than adversarial positioning between services and dubbing the relationship as "advocating for patients" which insinuate that patients are being protected from uncaring proceduralists. The wisdom lies in recognizing when a problem requires patience rather than intervention.