Cardiovascular risk perception and the evidence practice gap in Australian General Practice

Emma Heeley, Craig Anderson, Anushka Patel, Alan Cass, David Peiris, John Chalmers

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

In reply: We thank Radford for his insightful comments, seasoned with spice from the frontline of primary care. Although guidelines are an accepted part of clinical practice, they are just recommendations and are not without their limitations. Treatments need to be individually tailored according to many factors. Our aim, therefore, was to provide a current snapshot of adherence to cardiovascular guidelines in primary care in Australia.1 It would be naive of us to think that there would be complete adherence to the guidelines in the “real world”. We wished to obtain an overall benchmark figure and, more importantly, identify treatment gaps or disparities in care across important patient subgroups defined by risk of cardiovascular event.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)127-128
Number of pages2
JournalMedical Journal of Australia
Volume193
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Cardiovascular risk perception and the evidence practice gap in Australian General Practice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this