For 92% (731/796) of women with an ischaemic heart disease diagnosis I20-I255) in HES, general practitioners also had a record of ischaemic heart disease, either for the same diagnosis as in the specified admission (88%, 702) or for a closely related ischaemic heart disease diagnosis (4%, 29) (Table 4).
In the broad cerebrovascular disease diagnostic group (G45, I60-I69), 94% (720/766) of women with a diagnosis in HES had a general practice record either for the same diagnosis as in the specified admission (89%, 681) or for a closely related diagnosis in the broad cerebrovascular disease diagnoses ICD-10 code range (5%, 39).
General practitioners reported that a cerebrovascular disease diagnosis had been made prior the specified admission date for 5% (7/155) of women with a HES record of transient ischaemic attack (G45) and 5% (28/618) of women with a HES record of stroke and other cerebrovascular disorders I60-I699).
The general practitioner reported that an ischaemic heart disease diagnosis had been made prior to the specified admission date for 2% (2/130) of women with a HES record of myocardial infarction, and for 29% (197/683) of women with a HES record of other ischaemic heart disease.
Venous thromboembolism diagnoses had been made prior to the specified HES admission date for 4% (10/285) of women with a HES record of pulmonary embolism and 3% (15/495) of women with a HES record of venous thrombosis, according to the general practitioner.
The reason for hospital admission was specified for 87% of admissions, i.e. the speciality of the admission was recorded.
Of the 3,420 patients requiring chronic renal dialysis, 3,189 (93.2%) had a complete primary reason for admission specified, 230 (6.7%) had a partially coded reason for admission, and the remaining one admission (0.03%) had no reason for admission recorded.
Judge Kornreich ruled that the intent of an 1893 law giving state support to the museum — but also specifying that admission be free five days a week — was to secure the broadest possible access to the Met.
In order for individual universities to specify optimal admission requirements in the above context, a thorough examination of two key issues is in order.
One could proceed by specifying the admission criteria of campuses in the presence and absence of affirmative action, characterizing the criteria students have for the campuses to which they apply and to which they enroll if admitted and that campuses use in its admission decisions and, thus, the matching of students to colleges (or alternative activities)14.
