ArticleInternational journal of health geographics2026
Cooperative spatial modelling of hospital compliance with minimum caseload requirements.
Article in International journal of health geographics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimum caseload requirements (MCRs) ensure medical treatment quality but may negatively affect spatial accessibility to health care. Previous studies optimised the caseload distribution via spatial models, with a focus on balancing spatial concentration and accessibility with centralised case redistribution models. This study seeks to capture hospitals as active participants in MCR policy decisions by incorporating their intentions and motivations regarding MCRs within their spatial context, considering current caseloads and neighbouring hospital distances.
methodsThe study modelled four MCR procedures separately in an individual model in accordance with the German policy context: complex oesophageal interventions, complex pancreatic interventions, stem cell transplantation, and total knee replacement. The spatial model for Germany involved three steps: (1) delimiting cooperating hospitals, (2) iterative grouping, and (3) categorising hospital groups.
resultsThe grouping process described above resulted in 55 (oesophagus), 126 (pancreas), 39 (stem cell), and 672 (knee) groups across Germany. A total of 50.9%, 49.2%, 51.3%, and 81.5% respectively of these groups contained only one hospital (no cooperation needed). 7, 28, 2, and 22 groups require joint MCR compliance, whereas 19, 21, 8, and 8 hospitals are recommended special permission with a reduced caseload threshold to ensure spatial accessibility for certain regions. The results inform regional policy makers based on the hospital decision space.
conclusionsThis study models potential hospital cooperation based on proximity and caseload, introducing joint MCR compliance. The modelling process supports the formation, categorisation, and analysis of hospital groups, with parameter thresholds enabling flexible policy testing. This approach considers hospitals' intentions and motivations regarding MCRs, and reserves their decision space. This spatial model provides a theoretical basis for granting exceptional MCR permissions to improve spatial accessibility.
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.