To the Editor: The recent article by Penington, highlighting the apparent neglect by Australian hospitals of actively participating in research over the past two decades,1 is both timely and concerning. During this time, many of our hospitals have seen themselves increasingly as clinical service providers, with teaching and research perceived as additional costs rather than contributions to their status, to the quality of patient care and to clinical and scientific discovery.

My point is not simply to add weight to Penington’s eloquent historical, contemporary and strategic analysis of the nexus between hospitals and universities, but to explore areas that he touched on that need more detailed examination. I refer to the potential link between hospitals and community-based primary care. As Penington points out, “health care is increasingly provided outside hospitals”, yet this vital link between hospitals and primary care is often defunct, particularly when it comes to general practice.

When Penington refers to hospitals working with “general practice networks” to meet the demands of an ageing population and chronic disease, we need to ask: which hospitals and which networks? In Melbourne, we have health networks that include groups of hospitals with extended primary care and community facilities and responsibilities. Driven by casemix funding, the hospitals or health networks have a vested interest in primary care to ensure short patient stays. However, not all states are the same and not all hospitals have similar links with the community.

The other issue of concern is that general practice networks are often politicised and factionalised. Divisions of General Practice do not speak with a single voice, and their state-based organisations and national body do not always represent the views of regional Divisions. Added to the mix of 120 Divisions, we have 22 regional general practice training providers, the colleges (Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine), the Rural Doctors Association, the Australian Association for Academic General Practice, the Australian Medical Association, etc. Integration of the research, teaching and training activities of general practice or primary health care with hospital networks can only be achieved at a regional level.

We need to think globally, but act regionally. This calls for the formation of new regional consortia including universities, health networks (hospitals), Divisions and regional training providers (responsible for general practice registrar training) to work together on national clinical and health service research agendas in large and well defined geographic regions. If the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission is to take its role seriously, it will need to move beyond the confines of traditional hospital settings and explore opportunities in the community.

To the Editor: Penington identifies the appointment of a National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission (NHHRC) and the suspension of 5-year Australian Health Care Agreements as a “once in a generation” opportunity to rediscover university teaching hospitals for Australia.1

He identifies changes to health funding in Australia since 1975, the growth of “cost shifting” between federal and state governments, and reduced funding for university functions in hospitals as important contributors to the decline of university teaching hospitals in Australia.1

We agree with this analysis, but propose that the privatisation of many outpatient clinics as a result of cost shifting has had a disastrous effect on the clinical training of medical students, residents and registrars. Moreover, the reduced funding of university functions in hospitals has been replaced in “teaching” and community hospitals by industry funding, and the perception that industry has “bought” patients for their “research” agenda by providing data management services through per capita payments and gifts or perks for clinicians.

The infrastructure sustaining clinical research should not be so reliant on industry. Funding from the federal government (in partnership with state governments) is needed to nurture independent research in university teaching hospitals.

Penington highlights the fact that the key element of the university teaching hospital model was leadership of all units by academic clinicians with questioning minds. Since 1975, we believe leadership of units in “teaching” hospitals has changed such that very few are now led by academic clinicians.

We recently experienced a lack of interest by medical specialists in supporting clinical research that had been approved and funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The project will evaluate doctor–patient communication about treatment options in oncology, including clinical trials. Participating doctors were required to post letters of invitation to patients and audio-record one consultation per patient recruited (20 per doctor). Specialists in all major teaching hospitals in New South Wales and Victoria were contacted; 17 of 41 specialists contacted in NSW (41%) and 15 of 52 contacted in Victoria (29%) have agreed to participate. The most common reasons doctors gave for not participating was that they were too busy or that there was no reward for participation. It is notable that no specialist from two major teaching hospitals — one in Sydney (3 contacted) and one in Melbourne (6 contacted) — agreed to participate. A concerning theme is that the motivation to participate in trials is driven by financial incentives rather than the importance of the question being addressed or interest in supporting novel investigator-initiated clinical research.

A starting point for improving the quantum and calibre of “independent” clinical research in university teaching hospitals would be to support clinical research infrastructure by providing per capita payments for recruited patients — a model used by industry. Rebuilding independent research capacity in university hospitals will improve the standard of research in this country, and foster clinical research training.

We believe reviving the university teaching hospital model in Australia is an important task for the NHHRC.