How accurate is usnews?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
The ranking has nothing to do with residency training. I am sure it is fairly accurate for what they are looking at - surveys and some statistics that are highly dependent upon what the hospital sees.

"U.S. News surveyed nearly 10,000 specialists and sifted through data for approximately 5,000 hospitals to rank the best in 16 adult specialties, from cancer to urology. Death rates, patient safety, and hospital reputation were a few of the factors considered."
 
Plus, lumping neurology and neurosurgery together strongly affects the rankings. Hospitals with strong and synergistic inpatient services with lots of cross-talk between services benefit, and those with relative weaknesses on either side suffer. I think you can use USNews to separate rough tiers, but whether a program is ranked 4 or 9 on the list really shouldn't impact anyone's decision making, either as a patient or prospective resident.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Like most critical reviews of statistics, you always have to ask- what is this ACTUALLY telling me, how did they investigate this, and how is this warping reality

The idea that there is a magazine that posts a list of "the best" programs and people just accept that at face value uncritically is kind of surprising. Especially in a field where people are supposed to have a critical/skeptical viewpoint
 
Plus, lumping neurology and neurosurgery together strongly affects the rankings.

this actually brings up a side point- find a residency where the operators routing calls/pages know the difference between neurology, neurosurgery, and urology. You will sleep much better.
 
You may be aware that USNews changed the formulas for calculating the various categories that are used to determine the best. A few select hospital systems were invited to work with USNews to develop the revised algorithms. Not surprisingly, those hospitals stayed at the top or moved up. The rest of the group had a surprise when the ranking changed quite a bit. So, the 2012 rankings are essentially worthless. Next year, all hospitals will be able to adapt to the new ranking criteria (if they wish) and the ranking will likely change again. Yes, it's true. Hospitals actually change how they do things to achieve higher rankings.

Also, I agree with other posts - US News rankings have very little to do with residency training. Some of the "best" neuroscience hospitals might be terrible places to train if residents are given no access to interesting cases and are relegated to take care of the indigent patients and chronic pain and headaches.
 
Don't some of the top hospitals pay/donate/give money to the data gathering companies that US News uses to compile it's ranking?

As a patient to know the best hospital I would want to see data on; outcomes, adverse events (mortality), rate of medical mistakes, average length of stay, complexity of medical procedures/diseases, rate of unexpected mortality, rate of physician/nurse's washing hands upon entering and leaving pt rooms, comparison between one hospital and the others in the same town/city, average cost of hospital stay compared to other hospitals...etc.

As a resident wanting to know the best training program I would want to know how many faculty there are, how many actually teach and are involved in clinical duties vs. just working in their lab, placement of previous residents into PP vs. academics, fellowship placement, % receiving early career awards out of those who attempt to receive one, happiness of residents, happiness of recent grads and whether they would recommend training to others...etc. Just a few thoughts that I had.
 
thanks for all the replies
i was acutally wondering because there are some really good schools im looking at that were somewhat lower ranking than I expected (UTSW and URochester in the 40s?) despite all the amazing things I hear about their residency programs
 
Top