To the Editor: We support the recommendation of Runciman and colleagues for national agreement on clinical standards of health care,1 and highlight the importance of including routine health promotion activities as a core part of quality care in clinical practice. The indicators used by Runciman et al fail to consider core aspects of preventive care, such as screening and evidence-based behavioural interventions for lifestyle risk factors including smoking, poor diet, high-risk alcohol consumption and physical inactivity. Failure to include these aspects of preventive care is a missed opportunity for reducing the disease burden and promoting health. Indeed, the “health care encounter”1 presents a unique opportunity for changing health behaviours related to these risk factors, as medical practitioners are the most trusted source of health information.2
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Runciman WB, Hunt TD, Hannaford NA, et al. CareTrack: assessing the appropriateness of health care delivery in Australia. Med J Aust 2012; 197: 100-105. <MJA full text>
- 2. Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165: 2618-2624.
- 3. Cadilhac DA, Magnus A, Cumming T, et al. The health and economic benefits of reducing disease risk factors. Melbourne: VicHealth, 2009. http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/Publications/Research/Health-and-economic-benefits-of-reducing-disease-risk-factors.aspx (accessed Sep 2012).
- 4. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2635-2645.
- 5. Harris MF, Hobbs C, Powell Davies G, et al. Implementation of a SNAP intervention in two divisions of general practice: a feasibility study. Med J Aust 2005; 183 (10 Suppl): S54-S58. <MJA full text>
No relevant disclosures.