has been used to increase nhs capacity. in addition, there is some relatively minor sector crossover between public and private provision with it possible for some nhs patients to be treated in private healthcare facilities and some nhs facilities let out to the private sector for privately funded treatments or for pre- and post-operative care. however, since private hospitals tend to manage only routine operations and lack a level 3 critical care unit (or intensive therapy unit), unexpected emergencies may lead to the patient being transferred to an nhs hospital. when the blair government expanded the role of the private sector slightly within the nhs in england, the scottish government reduced the role of the private sector within public healthcare in scotland and planned legislation to prevent the possibility of private companies running gp practices in future. later, however in an attempt to comply with the scottish treatment time guarantee, a 12-week target for inpatient or day-case patients waiting for treatment, nhs lothian spent £11.3 million on private hospital treatment for nhs patients in 2013–14. funding and performance of healthcare since devolution in january 2010 the nuffield trust published a comparative study of nhs performance in england and the devolved administrations since devolution, concluding that while scotland, wales and northern ireland have had higher levels of funding per capita than england, with the latter having fewer doctors, nurses and managers per head of population, the english nhs is making better use of the resources by delivering relatively higher levels of activity, crude productivity of its staff, and lower waiting times. however, the nuffield trust quickly issued a clarifying statement in which they admitted that the figures they used to make comparisons between scotland and the rest of the united kingdom were inaccurate due to the figure for medical staff in scotland being overestimated by 27 per cent. using revised figures for medical staffing, scotland's ranking relative to the other devolved nations on crude productivity for medical staff changes, but there is no change relative to england. the nuffield trust study was comprehensively criticised by the bma which concluded "whilst the paper raises issues which are genuinely worth debating in the context of devolution, these issues do not tell the full story, nor are they unambiguously to the disadvantage of the devolved countries. the emphasis on policies which have been prioritised in england such as maximum waiting times will tend to reflect badly on countries which have prioritised spending increases in other areas including non-health ones." in april 2014 the nuffield trust produced a further comparative report "the four health systems of the uk: how do they compare?" which concluded that despite the widely publicised policy differences there was little sign that any one country was moving ahead of the others consistently across the available indicators of performance. it also complained that there was an increasingly limited set of comparable data on the four health systems of the uk which made comparison difficult. in february 2016 the organisation for economic co-operation and development published a review which concluded that performance of the nhs in wales was little different from that in the rest of the uk. they described performance across the uk as "fairly mediocre" saying that great policies were not being translated into great practices. they suggested that gps should be more involved in health boards and that resources should be shifted out of hospitals.