That website has a bunch of useless stuff that doesn't measure outcomes. At least US news uses outcome data and also stratifies places based on acuity.
FIrst if focuses almost exclusively on surgical care. The vast majority of hospital care is non-surgical.
Post-op DVT/PE- if you give the patient appropriate prophylactic therapy, there is nothing else you could have done and speaks more to the patient's co-morbidities rather than the quality of medical care. If they wanted to measure appropriate medical care, it should have measured number of DVT/PEs due to inappropriate DVT ppx. It didn't
CLABSI- I have a major problem with how CLABSI's are defined. It is retarted. For instance, a patient has a central line, aspirates and has a S pneumo pneumonia and grows it in the blood--> CLABSI when it had nothing to do with the central line and the hospital gets dinged..
Get docked bigtime if you don't have computer order entry.
An open ICU you automatically lose 60 points no matter your outcomes or if you have 1 intensivist per patient. It has nothing to do with OUTCOMES
Falls and trauma- often nothing you could do about this. Also speaks to how sick patients are.
Pressure ulcers- agree and disagree with this. You get dinged if the patient gets a pressure ulcer. This is part nursing care and part how sick the patients are. It is not standarized based on acuity.
Iatrogenic pneumothorax- this is not standrdized based on acuity. It is based on 1000 patient discharges. If patients aren't sick enough to need central lines, bronchs or biopsies they're probably not getting a pneumothorax. Also if a hospital doesn't have an ICU or doesnt have a pulmonology department you're not having a PTX. Why would the methodologies take this into account?
Teamwork, training and skill building- what a worthless measure.
Med reconsiliation- also worthless as it is required.
Leadership structure- worthless
You do realize that you are addressing another resident.
Didn't you go to MCV back in the day?