English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Recent Australian attempts to facilitate disinvestment in healthcare, by identifying instances of 'inappropriate' care from large Government datasets, are subject to significant methodological flaws. Amongst other criticisms has been the fact that the Government datasets utilized for this purpose correlate poorly with datasets collected by relevant professional bodies. Government data derive from official hospital coding, collected retrospectively by clerical personnel, whilst professional body data derive from unit-specific databases, collected contemporaneously with care by clinical personnel.

Identifying and acting on potentially inappropriate care? Inadequacy of current hospital coding for this task