Hospital

PARRISH MEDICAL CENTER

CCN: 100028 · TITUSVILLE, FL 32796 · BREVARD County

Bottom quartile Middle Top quartile Percentile badges compare this hospital to all 5,426 hospitals nationally.

Overview

Address
951 N WASHINGTON AVE, TITUSVILLE, FL 32796
Phone
(321) 268-6111
Hospital Type
Acute Care
Ownership
Government (District)
Emergency Services
Yes
Birthing Friendly
Yes
1 /5
★★★★★
CMS Overall Rating
p0
Acute Care — General medical and surgical hospital participating in Medicare IPPS. Subject to CMS quality reporting and payment adjustment programs (VBP, HRRP, HAC).

CMS Star Rating — Quality Domain Breakdown

CMS computes the overall star rating from five quality domains. Each domain compares this hospital's measures against national benchmarks.

Mortality 6 of 7 measures reported
6
Better No different Worse
30-day death rates for heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia, COPD, stroke, CABG, and kidney disease.
Safety of Care 7 of 8 measures reported
7
Better No different Worse
Healthcare-associated infections and patient safety indicators (PSI-90 composite).
Readmission 8 of 11 measures reported
1
7
Better No different Worse
30-day unplanned readmission rates for heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia, COPD, hip/knee replacement, and CABG.
Patient Experience 8 of 8 measures reported
8 measures reported (comparative data not available for this domain)
HCAHPS survey scores — patient-reported experience with communication, responsiveness, cleanliness, and discharge planning.
Timely & Effective Care 10 of 12 measures reported
10 measures reported (comparative data not available for this domain)
Process-of-care measures including flu immunization, blood clot prevention, and appropriate use of imaging.

Readmissions — Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program

The Excess Readmission Ratio (ERR) compares this hospital's 30-day readmission rate to expected, adjusting for patient mix. An ERR of 1.0 means readmissions are as expected; > 1.0 triggers a Medicare payment penalty (up to 3%).

⚠ This hospital has excess readmissions in at least one condition and is subject to HRRP payment reduction.
Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack)
0.9945 p45
Heart Failure 206 discharges
1.1099 p95
Pneumonia 235 discharges
0.8933 p3
COPD
0.9495 p10
Hip/Knee Replacement
0.8920 p22
CABG Surgery
— Not reported
Expected (1.0) National median

Value-Based Purchasing

The Hospital VBP Program adjusts Medicare payments based on clinical quality. The Total Performance Score (TPS) is a weighted composite of four domains, each worth 25%. This hospital's TPS is below the national median, suggesting a negative payment adjustment.

20.3 p17
Total Performance Score
National median: 29.5
Clinical Outcomes 25% weight
3.0 p30
Nat'l median: 5.0
Measures mortality rates for conditions like heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia, and COPD. Based on 30-day risk-standardized mortality.
Safety 25% weight
13.8 p73
Nat'l median: 10.0
Patient safety measures including healthcare-associated infections (CLABSI, CAUTI, SSI, MRSA, C. diff) and perioperative complications.
Person & Community Engagement 25% weight
3.5 p8
Nat'l median: 8.8
Based on HCAHPS patient experience survey results — communication with nurses and doctors, hospital cleanliness, pain management, discharge information.
Efficiency & Cost Reduction 25% weight
0.0 p0
Nat'l median: 2.5
Based on Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB). Measures episode-of-care costs from 3 days before admission through 30 days after discharge.

CMS Payment Programs

Three Medicare programs adjust hospital payments based on quality performance. Hospitals can be penalized under multiple programs simultaneously.

Readmissions (HRRP)
Penalized
Worst ERR: 1.1099
Value-Based Purchasing
20.3 TPS
Below national median
HAC Reduction
Payment Reduced
HAC Score: 0.6825

Complications & Deaths

30-day mortality rates, patient safety indicators, and complication rates. "Better" means statistically significantly better than the national rate.

Measure Score vs. National Denominator
COMP_HIP_KNEE 4.40 No Different Than the National Rate 45
Hybrid_HWM 5.30 Worse Than the National Rate 615
MORT_30_AMI 13.60 No Different Than the National Rate 75
MORT_30_CABG — — —
MORT_30_COPD 10.70 No Different Than the National Rate 66
MORT_30_HF 14.30 No Different Than the National Rate 174
MORT_30_PN 17.40 No Different Than the National Rate 229
MORT_30_STK 13.50 No Different Than the National Rate 68
PSI_03 0.64 No Different Than the National Rate 1,884
PSI_04 168.63 No Different Than the National Rate 36
PSI_06 0.18 No Different Than the National Rate 2,297
PSI_08 0.33 No Different Than the National Rate 2,324
PSI_09 2.36 No Different Than the National Rate 510
PSI_10 1.64 No Different Than the National Rate 103
PSI_11 10.56 No Different Than the National Rate 105
PSI_12 4.85 No Different Than the National Rate 518
PSI_13 5.02 No Different Than the National Rate 88
PSI_14 2.34 No Different Than the National Rate 107
PSI_15 1.20 No Different Than the National Rate 400
PSI_90 1.10 No Different Than the National Value —

Patient Experience (HCAHPS)

Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems — standardized patient survey measuring satisfaction with care.

Measure Score Star Rating
H_COMP_1_A_P: Nurses "always" communicated well 69% —
H_COMP_1_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 8% —
H_COMP_1_U_P: Nurses "usually" communicated well 23% —
H_COMP_1_LINEAR_SCORE: Nurse communication - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_1_STAR_RATING: Nurse communication - star rating — 2
H_NURSE_RESPECT_A_P: Nurses "always" treated them with courtesy and respect 78% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 5% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_U_P: Nurses "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 17% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_A_P: Nurses "always" listened carefully 65% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 9% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_U_P: Nurses "usually" listened carefully 26% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_A_P: Nurses "always" explained things so they could understand 65% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" explained things so they could understand 10% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_U_P: Nurses "usually" explained things so they could understand 25% —
H_COMP_2_A_P: Doctors "always" communicated well 75% —
H_COMP_2_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 8% —
H_COMP_2_U_P: Doctors "usually" communicated well 17% —
H_COMP_2_LINEAR_SCORE: Doctor communication - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_2_STAR_RATING: Doctor communication - star rating — 2
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_A_P: Doctors "always" treated them with courtesy and respect 84% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 6% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_U_P: Doctors "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 10% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_A_P: Doctors "always" listened carefully 73% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 8% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_U_P: Doctors "usually" listened carefully 19% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_A_P: Doctors "always" explained things so they could understand 68% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" explained things so they could understand 9% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_U_P: Doctors "usually" explained things so they could understand 23% —
H_COMP_5_A_P: Staff "always" explained 54% —
H_COMP_5_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained 26% —
H_COMP_5_U_P: Staff "usually" explained 20% —
H_COMP_5_LINEAR_SCORE: Communication about medicines - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_5_STAR_RATING: Communication about medicines - star rating — 2
H_MED_FOR_A_P: Staff "always" explained new medications 70% —
H_MED_FOR_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained new medications 13% —
H_MED_FOR_U_P: Staff "usually" explained new medications 17% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_A_P: Staff "always" explained possible side effects 37% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained possible side effects 39% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_U_P: Staff "usually" explained possible side effects 24% —
H_COMP_6_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients this information 15% —
H_COMP_6_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients this information 85% —
H_COMP_6_LINEAR_SCORE: Discharge information - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_6_STAR_RATING: Discharge information - star rating — 3
H_DISCH_HELP_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about help after discharge 16% —
H_DISCH_HELP_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about help after discharge 84% —
H_SYMPTOMS_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about possible symptoms 14% —
H_SYMPTOMS_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about possible symptoms 86% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_A_P: Room was "always" clean 62% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_SN_P: Room was "sometimes" or "never" clean 16% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_U_P: Room was "usually" clean 22% —
H_CLEAN_LINEAR_SCORE: Cleanliness - linear mean score — —
H_CLEAN_STAR_RATING: Cleanliness - star rating — 2
H_QUIET_HSP_A_P: "Always" quiet at night 48% —
H_QUIET_HSP_SN_P: "Sometimes" or "never" quiet at night 16% —
H_QUIET_HSP_U_P: "Usually" quiet at night 36% —
H_QUIET_LINEAR_SCORE: Quietness - linear mean score — —
H_QUIET_STAR_RATING: Quietness - star rating — 2
H_HSP_RATING_0_6: Patients who gave a rating of "6" or lower (low) 16% —
H_HSP_RATING_7_8: Patients who gave a rating of "7" or "8" (medium) 28% —
H_HSP_RATING_9_10: Patients who gave a rating of "9" or "10" (high) 56% —
H_HSP_RATING_LINEAR_SCORE: Overall hospital rating - linear mean score — —
H_HSP_RATING_STAR_RATING: Overall hospital rating - star rating — 2
H_RECMND_DN: "NO", patients would not recommend the hospital (they probably would not or definitely would not recommend it) 14% —
H_RECMND_DY: "YES", patients would definitely recommend the hospital 58% —
H_RECMND_PY: "YES", patients would probably recommend the hospital 28% —
H_RECMND_LINEAR_SCORE: Recommend hospital - linear mean score — —
H_RECMND_STAR_RATING: Recommend hospital - star rating — 2
H_STAR_RATING: Summary star rating — 2

Healthcare Associated Infections

Standardized Infection Ratios (SIR). A SIR < 1.0 means fewer infections than predicted based on national baseline data.

Measure Score (SIR) vs. National
HAI_1_CILOWER 0.035 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_CIUPPER 3.401 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_DOPC 2099.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_ELIGCASES 1.450 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_NUMERATOR 1.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_SIR 0.690 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_CILOWER N/A No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_CIUPPER 1.239 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_DOPC 3472.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_ELIGCASES 2.417 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_NUMERATOR 0.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_SIR 0.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CILOWER N/A No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CIUPPER 1.643 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_DOPC 71.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_ELIGCASES 1.823 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_NUMERATOR 0.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_SIR 0.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CILOWER — —
HAI_4_CIUPPER — —
HAI_4_DOPC 13.000 —
HAI_4_ELIGCASES 0.113 —
HAI_4_NUMERATOR 0.000 —
HAI_4_SIR — —
HAI_5_CILOWER 0.035 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_CIUPPER 3.493 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_DOPC 32746.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_ELIGCASES 1.412 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_NUMERATOR 1.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_SIR 0.708 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_6_CILOWER 0.022 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_CIUPPER 0.437 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_DOPC 29253.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_ELIGCASES 15.120 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_NUMERATOR 2.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_SIR 0.132 Better than the National Benchmark

Timely & Effective Care

Process-of-care measures including ED wait times, treatment timeliness, and preventive care.

Measure Score Condition
EDV medium Emergency Department
GMCS — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
GMCS_Malnutrition_Diagnosis_Documented — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
GMCS_Malnutrition_Screening — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
GMCS_Nutrition_Assessment — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
GMCS_Nutritional_Care_Plan — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_HYPER — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_HYPO 3.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_ORAE 0.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
IMM_3 70.0 Healthcare Personnel Vaccination
OP_18a 225.0 Emergency Department
OP_18b 221.0 Emergency Department
OP_18c 344.0 Emergency Department
OP_18d 298.0 Emergency Department
OP_22 2.0 Emergency Department
OP_23 64.0 Emergency Department
OP_29 98.0 Colonoscopy care
OP_31 — Cataract surgery outcome
OP_40 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SAFE_USE_OF_OPIOIDS 16.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SEP_1 49.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_3HR 62.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_6HR 80.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_3HR 75.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_6HR 79.0 Sepsis Care
STK_02 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_03 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_05 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_1 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_2 94.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure

Unplanned Hospital Visits

Readmission and ED return rates within 30 days of discharge.

Measure Score vs. National
EDAC_30_AMI 22.40 More Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_HF 27.90 More Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_PN -29.40 Fewer Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
Hybrid_HWR 14.50 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_32 12.70 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ADM 10.40 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ED 5.30 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_36 1.00 No Different than expected
READM_30_AMI 13.50 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_CABG — —
READM_30_COPD 17.20 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HF 21.80 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HIP_KNEE 4.40 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_PN 14.30 No Different Than the National Rate

Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary

MSPB ratio: values > 1.0 mean this hospital's episode spending is higher than the national median hospital.

Value
1.05

Financial Health (Cost Report — FY 2023)

All Data

Every labeled metric surfaced for this hospital, with national medians and percentiles where a benchmark is available.

Download CSV

Show 87 rows
Source Metric Value National Median Pctl. Raw key
Cost Report Cost-to-Charge Ratio 0.20 — metrics.cost_to_charge_ratio
Cost Report Current Ratio 1.08 — metrics.current_ratio
Cost Report Employees per Bed 4.28 — metrics.employees_per_bed
Cost Report fiscal_year 2,023 — fiscal_year
Cost Report Fund Balance ($) $52,174,506 — metrics.fund_balance
Cost Report Net Income ($) $-20,482,264 — metrics.net_income
Cost Report Net Patient Revenue ($) $158,904,578 — metrics.net_patient_revenue
Cost Report Operating Margin (%) -19.6% — metrics.operating_margin
Cost Report Total Assets ($) $186,538,834 — metrics.total_assets
Cost Report Total Costs ($) $128,671,262 — metrics.total_costs
Cost Report Total Liabilities ($) $134,364,328 — metrics.total_liabilities
Cost Report Total Margin (%) -12.1% — metrics.total_margin
Cost Report Uncompensated Care (%) 6.5% — metrics.uncompensated_care_pct
General Information Address 951 N WASHINGTON AVE — Address
General Information City/Town TITUSVILLE — City/Town
General Information Count of Facility MORT Measures 6 — Count of Facility MORT Measures
General Information Count of Facility Pt Exp Measures 8 — Count of Facility Pt Exp Measures
General Information Count of Facility READM Measures 8 — Count of Facility READM Measures
General Information Count of Facility Safety Measures 7 — Count of Facility Safety Measures
General Information Count of Facility TE Measures 10 — Count of Facility TE Measures
General Information Count of MORT Measures Better 0 — Count of MORT Measures Better
General Information Count of MORT Measures No Different 6 — Count of MORT Measures No Different
General Information Count of MORT Measures Worse 0 — Count of MORT Measures Worse
General Information Count of READM Measures Better 1 — Count of READM Measures Better
General Information Count of READM Measures No Different 7 — Count of READM Measures No Different
General Information Count of READM Measures Worse 0 — Count of READM Measures Worse
General Information Count of Safety Measures Better 0 — Count of Safety Measures Better
General Information Count of Safety Measures No Different 7 — Count of Safety Measures No Different
General Information Count of Safety Measures Worse 0 — Count of Safety Measures Worse
General Information County/Parish BREVARD — County/Parish
General Information Emergency Services Yes — Emergency Services
General Information Facility ID 100028 — Facility ID
General Information Facility Name PARRISH MEDICAL CENTER — Facility Name
General Information Hospital overall rating 1 — Hospital overall rating
General Information Hospital overall rating footnote — — Hospital overall rating footnote
General Information Hospital Ownership Government - Hospital District or Authority — Hospital Ownership
General Information Hospital Type Acute Care Hospitals — Hospital Type
General Information Meets criteria for birthing friendly designation Y — Meets criteria for birthing friendly designation
General Information MORT Group Footnote — — MORT Group Footnote
General Information MORT Group Measure Count 7 — MORT Group Measure Count
General Information Pt Exp Group Footnote — — Pt Exp Group Footnote
General Information Pt Exp Group Measure Count 8 — Pt Exp Group Measure Count
General Information READM Group Footnote — — READM Group Footnote
General Information READM Group Measure Count 11 — READM Group Measure Count
General Information Safety Group Footnote — — Safety Group Footnote
General Information Safety Group Measure Count 8 — Safety Group Measure Count
General Information State FL — State
General Information TE Group Footnote — — TE Group Footnote
General Information TE Group Measure Count 12 — TE Group Measure Count
General Information Telephone Number (321) 268-6111 — Telephone Number
General Information ZIP Code 32796 — ZIP Code
HAC Reduction Program fiscal_year 2,026 — fiscal_year
HAC Reduction Program measures — cauti — sir 0.47 — measures.cauti.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — cdi — sir 0.28 — measures.cdi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — clabsi — sir 2.38 — measures.clabsi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — mrsa — sir 1.87 — measures.mrsa.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — ssi — sir 0.55 — measures.ssi.sir
HAC Reduction Program payment_reduction Yes — payment_reduction
HAC Reduction Program total_hac_score 0.68 — total_hac_score
Medicare Spending per Beneficiary End Date 12/31/2024 — End Date
Medicare Spending per Beneficiary Measure ID MSPB-1 — Measure ID
Medicare Spending per Beneficiary Start Date 01/01/2024 — Start Date
Medicare Spending per Beneficiary Value 1.05 — Value
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Excess readmission ratio 0.99 0.9995 p45 READM-30-AMI-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Expected readmission rate 12.3% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Predicted readmission rate 12.2% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Excess readmission ratio 0.95 0.9969 p10 READM-30-COPD-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Expected readmission rate 17.2% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Predicted readmission rate 16.3% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Excess readmission ratio 1.11 0.9983 p95 READM-30-HF-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Expected readmission rate 19.0% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of discharges 206 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of readmissions 51 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Predicted readmission rate 21.1% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Excess readmission ratio 0.89 0.9916 p22 READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Expected readmission rate 6.0% — READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Predicted readmission rate 5.4% — READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Excess readmission ratio 0.89 0.9955 p3 READM-30-PN-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Expected readmission rate 15.9% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of discharges 235 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of readmissions 26 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Predicted readmission rate 14.2% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Value-Based Purchasing Clinical Outcomes 3.00 5.00 p30 clinical_outcomes_score
Value-Based Purchasing Efficiency & Cost Reduction 0.00 2.50 p0 efficiency_score
Value-Based Purchasing Person & Community Engagement 3.50 8.75 p8 person_community_score
Value-Based Purchasing Safety 13.75 10.00 p73 safety_score
Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score 20.25 29.50 p17 total_performance_score
Methodology

Full methodology →