CareTrack: assessing the appropriateness of health care delivery in Australia
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the percentage of health care encounters at which a sample of adult Australians received appropriate care (ie, care in line with evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Computer-assisted telephone interviews and retrospective review of the medical records (for 2009-2010) of a sample of at least 1000 Australian adults to measure compliance with 522 expert consensus indicators representing appropriate care for 22 common conditions. Participants were selected from households in areas of South Australia and New South Wales chosen to be representative of the socioeconomic profile of Australians. Health care encounters occurred in health care practices and hospitals with general practitioners, specialists, physiotherapists, chiropractors, psychologists and counsellors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Percentage of health care encounters at which the sample received appropriate care. RESULTS: From 15 292 households contacted by telephone, 7649 individuals agreed to participate, 3567 consented, 2638 proved eligible, and 1154 were included after gaining the consent of their health care providers. The adult Australians in this sample received appropriate care at 57% (95% CI, 54%-60%) of 35 573 eligible health care encounters. Compliance with indicators of appropriate care at condition level ranged from 13% (95% CI, 1%-43%) for alcohol dependence to 90% (95% CI, 85%-93%) for coronary artery disease. For health care providers with more than 300 eligible encounters each, overall compliance ranged from 32% to 86%. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were pockets of excellence and some aspects of care were well managed across health care providers, the consistent delivery of appropriate care needs improvement, and gaps in care should be addressed. There is a need for national agreement on clinical standards and better structuring of medical records to facilitate the delivery of more appropriate care.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Similar findings on adherence have been reported across a number of clinical areas in different countries.
“Similar findings have been reported across a number of clinical areas in different countries [4–6].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [5]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 436
- Authors
- Runciman, W. B., Hunt, T. D., Hannaford, N. A., Hibbert, P. D., Westbrook, J. I., Coiera, E. W., Day, R. O., Hindmarsh, D. M., McGlynn, E. A., & Braithwaite, J.
- Affiliations
- University of South Australia (AU)
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Kaiser Permanente (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Medical Journal of Australia
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-07
- Volume
- 197
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 100-105
- ISSN
- 0025-729X (ISSN-L)
- 1326-5377
- OpenAlex
- W2317636905
- Cited by
- 436
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 51.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- The Medical Journal of Australia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Health and Medical Research Council (568612)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Keywords
- guideline adherence, quality of care, healthcare encounters, clinical practice variation, alcoholism, coronary artery disease, medical records, clinical standards, Australia
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Medical Records, Middle Aged, New South Wales, Retrospective Studies, South Australia, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Guideline Adherence, Quality Indicators, Health Care
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review