Separate what is known, what is actionable, and what still needs measuring.
The research layer exists to prevent false certainty. Strong evidence, weak measurement and intervention readiness are shown separately so the next question is obvious.
Evidence strength
How strong is the underlying evidence that a resource problem exists?Measurement quality
Can the problem be observed consistently in current data?Intervention readiness
Is there a practical, governed change that can be tested now?Research question
What still has to be learned before scale or savings can be claimed?Repeat medicinesEvidence: High that waste exists
Low nationally
High
What is the current avoidable value when prescribing, dispensing and stock are measured together?
Aseptic and injectable medicinesEvidence: High
Medium
High
Which products and sites offer the largest cash and capacity opportunity today?
Oncology route optimisationEvidence: High for selected medicines
Medium to high
High
How quickly are new lower-resource routes adopted across providers?
Dental preventionEvidence: High for downstream burden
High for hospital activity, lower for preventability
Needs pilot
Can a scalable school or community pathway reduce downstream extraction activity without adding a new bottleneck?
Dermatology imagingEvidence: High
Medium
High
Where does image-first triage still have avoidable implementation variation?
No single national waste number.
We do not add overlapping historical models, capacity estimates and cost-avoidance figures into one headline claim. The first objective is to measure the recoverable proportion accurately.
Observed waste, potential waste and recoverable waste are three different things. Verified saving only exists after an intervention has been measured.