Incentives for GPs to cut emergency admissions could lead to "target culture," warns GP leader
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A plan to tie a proportion of the funding for clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to reductions in “avoidable” admissions to hospital of patients with long term conditions risks distorting priorities and creating a new “target culture,” a senior doctors’ leader has warned. A quarter of the new “quality premium” incentive payment paid to new commissioning organisations in England from 2014-15 would depend on their achieving a reduction or no change in emergency admissions for specific conditions between 2013-14 and 2014-15, says draft guidance from the NHS Commissioning Board.1 The money allocated to the premium, proposed as part of the UK government’s changes to healthcare,2 will be determined after parliament sets regulations in the next few months. It will be paid on top of each commissioning group’s main financial allocation for 2014-15 and the running costs allowance of £25 (€30; $40) per head …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".