Skip to main content
. 2016 Dec 5;11(12):e0166483. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166483

Table 2. ED attendances, admits, yield; CTPA usage and PE diagnosis per 1000 ED adults.

Site Adult ED patients during study ED Admits during study (%)* CTPA (n) per site YIELD—% +ve PE CTPA/ 1000 ED adults CTPA/ 1000 ED admits CTPA +ve for PE /1000 ED adults$
A 67601 9379 (13.9%) 520 15.8 7.7 55.4 1.2
B 50120 13547 (56.4%) 499 13.4 10.0 36.8 1.3
C 109942 54963 (42.3%) 501 16.0 4.6 9.1 0.7
D 84800 44000 (33%) 515 9.3 6.1 11.7 0.6
E 83300 39600 (54.5%) 507 16. 6 6.1 12.8 1.0
F* 232000 71100 (34%) 443 25.3 1.9 6.2 0.5
G 44795 20830 (46.7%) 499 17.0 11.1 24.0 1.9
H 70209 23450 (33.2%) 359 10.0 5.1 15.3 0.5
I 37643 20686 (40.9%) 324 16.0 8.6 15.7 1.4
J 80326 37392 (46.5%) 491 12.4 6.1 13.1 0.8
K 129000 74300 (58%) 1053 16.3 8.2 14.2 1.3
M 38656 13575 (26.1%) 420 12.6 10.9 30.9 1.4
L 33897 25179 (38.1%) 498 9.8 14.7 19.8 1.0
N 60793 21018 (29.3%) 435 11.7 7.2 20.7 0.8
Totals OR Means* (CI) 1140030 459080 (40.3%) 7064 14.3*(13.8–15.4%) 6.2* 15.4* 0.9*$

$ NB that some sites (12/14) also use VQ for a small proportion of their patients in the assessment for possible PE so that the rate of PE/1000 will be an under-estimation of total population diagnosis