To the Editor: I congratulate Harris et al1 on conducting a survey that identified aspects of specialty training that are difficult for female doctors and doctors with partners and/or children.

However, there are some omissions in their article, which, although small, illustrate further ways in which “specialty” training is unfriendly to the aforementioned groups. The authors purported to survey all medical graduates registered in 2002 “with a clinical college training program”. It appears that registrars on the Australasian College of Sports Physicians (ACSP) training program were not included. This training program has been in place since 1992, has been recognised by the Health Insurance Commission since 1999, and is most definitely a “clinical college training program”. Although similar in structure, there are two major differences between the sports physician training program and most other “specialty” training programs; namely, that the training is almost entirely non-hospital based and that the resulting qualification (the FACSP) is not recognised as a “specialty” in Australia. In 2002, I believe that the Australasian College of Sexual Health Physicians was in a similar position to the ACSP, administering a “non-specialty” clinical college training program (which is now under the auspices of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians).

The recognised specialties in Australia, with the major exception of general practice, almost all conduct most of their training in hospitals. Not only are these hospital-based positions relatively “female-unfriendly” and “parent-unfriendly”, they don’t adequately train specialists for the majority of doctor–patient interactions, which do not actually take place in hospitals. They also contribute to the reality that our “health” system is focused on treatment of disease rather than prevention.2 Areas such as women’s and men’s health, travel medicine and dietary medicine also exist within our health system.3 Ideally, if we want a health system that is better at actually promoting health, these areas should also have formally recognised training programs.

The conservatism of both the Australian Government and the medical profession is reflected in the process for recognising new specialties, which has severely discouraged community-based specialties from being developed. The “choice” of specialty training that Harris et al examined in their study was limited by what was officially sanctioned in 2002. If it were accepted that there should be more recognised specialty postgraduate training positions in community-based fields of medicine, then not only would our medical system start to address its deficiencies in health promotion, but there would be far more attractive training opportunities for doctors who don’t wish to pursue full-time hospital-based positions.