ArticleBritish medical journal (Clinical research ed.)1987
Accounting for cross boundary flows.
Article in British medical journal (Clinical research ed.), 1987. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors that influence general practitioners' choice of hospital when referring patients for elective surgery.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1993Article
- NHS review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1989Article
- How should district allocations be altered for changes in cross boundary flows?British medical journal (Clinical research ed.) · 1988Article
- Reviewing RAWP. Variations in admission rates: implications for equitable allocation of resources.British medical journal (Clinical research ed.) · 1987Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RAWP (Resource Allocation Working Party) allows for cross boundary flows by adjusting regional or district health authorities' (DHAs) targets at an average specialty cost. The previous paper in this series examined problems for an inner city district health authority arising from RAWP cross boundary flow adjustment. This paper examines the likely importance of these and other problems for the National Health Service as a whole. Cross charging has been proposed as an alternative method of funding flows. District health authorities would receive an allocation equivalent to their RAWP target and then all non-emergency flows would be agreed between the authorities where patients live and competing authorities offering treatment at previously negotiated charges based on local estimates of each type of case. The problem of cost estimation is usually cited as a difficulty with this proposed reform, but this paper also discusses other important issues that tend to be neglected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.