Activity Levels. The agreed indicative level of activity for this service is: Referrals 40 Assessment 24 OCD Intensive Treatment Programme 10 Referrals for Neurosurgery 3 Follow-up appointments 10-15 NSD in partnership with the Provider will continually review the services’ ability to meet indicated levels and consider and agree variations required. This will include any associated changes to the financial profile.
Activity Levels. The agreed indicative level of activity for this service is: Interventional cardiology procedures Diagnostic Interventional 120 60 60 Surgical procedures 120-130 Cardiac MRIs (reviews, follow up and diagnostics) 650 Pulmonary hypertension patients 45 Consultations (assessment and follow up) Obstetrics (new and return patients) Transition - (this does not represent the transition population and it likely that this number may increase) 1400 172 64* *It is noted that this number represents the number of appointments, but does not represent the target population which is significantly higher; numbers could increase over time. NSD in partnership with the Provider will continually review the services’ ability to meet indicated levels and consider and agree variations required. This will include any associated changes to the financial profile.
Activity Levels. 2.5.1 Activity The following activity will be recorded and provided to the LCCG on the following basis: The Provider will supply for each client contact on a monthly basis: NHS Number ID of patient, including sex, age, ethnicity, post code and general practitioner of clients currently receiving a homeopathy service from the Provider. Referrer and diagnosis of each referred condition, including date of referral. Details and numbers of treatments within each service component The Provider will supply for each client contact on a 6 monthly basis: Audit reports which will include patient reported outcomes and service improvements, a summary of activity, referring practices and reasons for referral, and any other information as reasonably requested the commissioner The Provider will supply for each client contact on an annual basis: Patient satisfaction questionnaires as agreed with the commissioner The Provider will agree to any reasonable request for further information and will not refuse any reasonable request to allow the LCCG to inspect any records or client data relating to the service covered by this Agreement. Any information acquired by the LCCG as a result of any such inspection shall be confidential and its access will be regulated under the Data Protection Act.
Activity Levels. If the institutions described in this paper primarily matter because of their influence on error, then all else equal, those circuits which have adopted them should make fewer mistakes in panel cases and thus have reduced demand for en banc review. By contrast, if the institutions matter because they influence conflict on the Courts of Appeals, the effects on en banc review should be mixed, with some specific institutions making review more likely and others making it less likely. A simple, bivariate look at the mean number of en bancs in the presence and ab- sence of each institution reveals some interesting things. This data is given in Table 3.3. Each row represents one internal institution, coded as above. The cell entries in each column give the average number of en bancs for circuit-years with or without each in- stitution. I have also included the derived anticipated effects on conflict- and error-based inconsistency, from Table 3.1, for easy comparison. The table also gives the two-tailed significance level from a two-sample differences in means test, comparing the means with and without each individual institution.12 Of note is that the apparent impact of each institution on the levels of en banc activity appear to track much more closely with the conflict-related expectations than with the error-related ones. Circuit-years which have those institutions anticipated to potentially worsen conflict—screening, publication rules, and bundling—also have higher average amounts of en banc review. This indicates that circuits with those institutions have had on average a heightened need to engage in en bancs. 12Note that the en banc levels with and without each institution, weighted by the prevalence of the institution, average to 5.7 for each row—the overall mean number of en bancs per circuit-year in the sample. Reform Absent Present Difference Institutional Legal Screening 3.4 6.5 3.1** + − Table 3.3: Mean En Banc Activity Levels, By Reform Publication (maj.) 5.2 6.4 1.2** + − Publication (unan.) 5.6 5.8 0.2 + − Case Bundling 5.5 6.3 0.8** =/+ − Pre-filing Circulation 5.9 5.3 -0.6 − − Informal en banc (maj.) 6.2 2.7 -3.5** − − Informal en banc (unan.) 5.8 4.0 -1.8 =/− − Significance levels : † : 10% ∗ : 5% ∗∗ : 1% Circuit-years with institutions which were anticipated to relieve conflict exhibit less en banc activity. Though only some of these differences are statistically significant, the predictions of the conflict expectations are met for every singl...
