Hospital

MAGNOLIA REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER

CCN: 250009 · CORINTH, MS 38834 · ALCORN County

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

Overview

Address
611 ALCORN DRIVE, CORINTH, MS 38834
Phone
(662) 293-1000
Hospital Type
Acute Care
Ownership
Non-Profit (Other)
Emergency Services
Yes
Birthing Friendly
Yes
3 /5
★★★★★
CMS Overall Rating
p30
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 7 of 7 measures reported
6
1
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
1
6
Better No different Worse
Healthcare-associated infections and patient safety indicators (PSI-90 composite).
Readmission 8 of 11 measures reported
8
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 11 of 12 measures reported
11 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) 119 discharges
1.0027 p52
Heart Failure 366 discharges
0.9179 p8
Pneumonia 536 discharges
1.0434 p77
COPD 160 discharges
0.9768 p31
Hip/Knee Replacement 234 discharges
1.3049 p96
CABG Surgery
0.9556 p32
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 above the national median, suggesting a positive payment adjustment.

33.6 p65
Total Performance Score
National median: 29.5
Clinical Outcomes 25% weight
2.9 p29
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
5.4 p15
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
17.8 p92
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
7.5 p67
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: 1.3049
Value-Based Purchasing
33.6 TPS
Above national median
HAC Reduction
No Reduction
HAC Score: 0.2833

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 3.90 No Different Than the National Rate 232
Hybrid_HWM 5.30 Worse Than the National Rate 1,212
MORT_30_AMI 12.70 No Different Than the National Rate 100
MORT_30_CABG 3.90 No Different Than the National Rate 70
MORT_30_COPD 10.10 No Different Than the National Rate 136
MORT_30_HF 15.60 Worse Than the National Rate 300
MORT_30_PN 19.30 Worse Than the National Rate 487
MORT_30_STK 13.20 No Different Than the National Rate 170
PSI_03 0.21 No Different Than the National Rate 3,497
PSI_04 172.53 No Different Than the National Rate 48
PSI_06 0.17 No Different Than the National Rate 4,962
PSI_08 0.23 No Different Than the National Rate 4,895
PSI_09 2.21 No Different Than the National Rate 1,075
PSI_10 1.92 No Different Than the National Rate 440
PSI_11 6.89 No Different Than the National Rate 424
PSI_12 3.71 No Different Than the National Rate 1,145
PSI_13 7.51 No Different Than the National Rate 428
PSI_14 2.00 No Different Than the National Rate 139
PSI_15 1.18 No Different Than the National Rate 367
PSI_90 0.90 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 82% —
H_COMP_1_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 5% —
H_COMP_1_U_P: Nurses "usually" communicated well 13% —
H_COMP_1_LINEAR_SCORE: Nurse communication - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_1_STAR_RATING: Nurse communication - star rating — 4
H_NURSE_RESPECT_A_P: Nurses "always" treated them with courtesy and respect 88% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 4% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_U_P: Nurses "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 8% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_A_P: Nurses "always" listened carefully 80% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 5% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_U_P: Nurses "usually" listened carefully 15% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_A_P: Nurses "always" explained things so they could understand 77% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" explained things so they could understand 6% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_U_P: Nurses "usually" explained things so they could understand 17% —
H_COMP_2_A_P: Doctors "always" communicated well 84% —
H_COMP_2_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 4% —
H_COMP_2_U_P: Doctors "usually" communicated well 12% —
H_COMP_2_LINEAR_SCORE: Doctor communication - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_2_STAR_RATING: Doctor communication - star rating — 4
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_A_P: Doctors "always" treated them with courtesy and respect 89% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 3% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_U_P: Doctors "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 8% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_A_P: Doctors "always" listened carefully 83% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 5% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_U_P: Doctors "usually" listened carefully 12% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_A_P: Doctors "always" explained things so they could understand 80% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" explained things so they could understand 6% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_U_P: Doctors "usually" explained things so they could understand 14% —
H_COMP_5_A_P: Staff "always" explained 64% —
H_COMP_5_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained 18% —
H_COMP_5_U_P: Staff "usually" explained 18% —
H_COMP_5_LINEAR_SCORE: Communication about medicines - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_5_STAR_RATING: Communication about medicines - star rating — 3
H_MED_FOR_A_P: Staff "always" explained new medications 74% —
H_MED_FOR_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained new medications 7% —
H_MED_FOR_U_P: Staff "usually" explained new medications 19% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_A_P: Staff "always" explained possible side effects 53% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained possible side effects 29% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_U_P: Staff "usually" explained possible side effects 18% —
H_COMP_6_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients this information 11% —
H_COMP_6_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients this information 89% —
H_COMP_6_LINEAR_SCORE: Discharge information - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_6_STAR_RATING: Discharge information - star rating — 4
H_DISCH_HELP_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about help after discharge 14% —
H_DISCH_HELP_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about help after discharge 86% —
H_SYMPTOMS_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about possible symptoms 8% —
H_SYMPTOMS_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about possible symptoms 92% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_A_P: Room was "always" clean 64% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_SN_P: Room was "sometimes" or "never" clean 17% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_U_P: Room was "usually" clean 19% —
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 67% —
H_QUIET_HSP_SN_P: "Sometimes" or "never" quiet at night 7% —
H_QUIET_HSP_U_P: "Usually" quiet at night 26% —
H_QUIET_LINEAR_SCORE: Quietness - linear mean score — —
H_QUIET_STAR_RATING: Quietness - star rating — 4
H_HSP_RATING_0_6: Patients who gave a rating of "6" or lower (low) 7% —
H_HSP_RATING_7_8: Patients who gave a rating of "7" or "8" (medium) 15% —
H_HSP_RATING_9_10: Patients who gave a rating of "9" or "10" (high) 78% —
H_HSP_RATING_LINEAR_SCORE: Overall hospital rating - linear mean score — —
H_HSP_RATING_STAR_RATING: Overall hospital rating - star rating — 4
H_RECMND_DN: "NO", patients would not recommend the hospital (they probably would not or definitely would not recommend it) 4% —
H_RECMND_DY: "YES", patients would definitely recommend the hospital 76% —
H_RECMND_PY: "YES", patients would probably recommend the hospital 20% —
H_RECMND_LINEAR_SCORE: Recommend hospital - linear mean score — —
H_RECMND_STAR_RATING: Recommend hospital - star rating — 4
H_STAR_RATING: Summary star rating — 4

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 0.092 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_CIUPPER 1.810 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_DOPC 4051.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_ELIGCASES 3.651 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_NUMERATOR 2.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_SIR 0.548 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_CILOWER 0.513 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_CIUPPER 1.932 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_DOPC 7491.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_ELIGCASES 8.550 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_NUMERATOR 9.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_SIR 1.053 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CILOWER 2.763 Worse than the National Benchmark
HAI_3_CIUPPER 8.281 Worse than the National Benchmark
HAI_3_DOPC 90.000 Worse than the National Benchmark
HAI_3_ELIGCASES 2.617 Worse than the National Benchmark
HAI_3_NUMERATOR 13.000 Worse than the National Benchmark
HAI_3_SIR 4.968 Worse than the National Benchmark
HAI_4_CILOWER — —
HAI_4_CIUPPER — —
HAI_4_DOPC 32.000 —
HAI_4_ELIGCASES 0.269 —
HAI_4_NUMERATOR 1.000 —
HAI_4_SIR — —
HAI_5_CILOWER N/A No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_CIUPPER 1.670 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_DOPC 24206.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_ELIGCASES 1.794 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_NUMERATOR 0.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_SIR 0.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_6_CILOWER 0.290 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_6_CIUPPER 1.313 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_6_DOPC 23492.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_6_ELIGCASES 10.548 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_6_NUMERATOR 7.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_6_SIR 0.664 No Different than 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 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_ORAE — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
IMM_3 46.0 Healthcare Personnel Vaccination
OP_18a 152.0 Emergency Department
OP_18b 150.0 Emergency Department
OP_18c 146.0 Emergency Department
OP_18d 333.0 Emergency Department
OP_22 2.0 Emergency Department
OP_23 67.0 Emergency Department
OP_29 — Colonoscopy care
OP_31 — Cataract surgery outcome
OP_40 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SAFE_USE_OF_OPIOIDS 13.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SEP_1 58.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_3HR 70.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_6HR 82.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_3HR 76.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_6HR 93.0 Sepsis Care
STK_02 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_03 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_05 97.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_1 100.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_2 100.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure

Unplanned Hospital Visits

Readmission and ED return rates within 30 days of discharge.

Measure Score vs. National
EDAC_30_AMI 15.60 Average Days per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_HF -24.80 Fewer Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_PN -7.40 Average Days per 100 Discharges
Hybrid_HWR 15.00 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_32 — —
OP_35_ADM — Number of Cases Too Small
OP_35_ED — Number of Cases Too Small
OP_36 1.10 No Different than expected
READM_30_AMI 13.60 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_CABG 10.10 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_COPD 17.80 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HF 18.10 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HIP_KNEE 6.30 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_PN 16.80 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
0.94

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 96 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 0.85 — metrics.current_ratio
Cost Report Employees per Bed 1.73 — metrics.employees_per_bed
Cost Report fiscal_year 2,023 — fiscal_year
Cost Report Fund Balance ($) $-5,305,248 — metrics.fund_balance
Cost Report Net Income ($) $-17,802 — metrics.net_income
Cost Report Net Patient Revenue ($) $174,237,415 — metrics.net_patient_revenue
Cost Report Operating Margin (%) -5.1% — metrics.operating_margin
Cost Report Total Assets ($) $200,716,206 — metrics.total_assets
Cost Report Total Costs ($) $118,351,055 — metrics.total_costs
Cost Report Total Liabilities ($) $206,021,454 — metrics.total_liabilities
Cost Report Total Margin (%) -0.0% — metrics.total_margin
Cost Report Uncompensated Care (%) 8.0% — metrics.uncompensated_care_pct
General Information Address 611 ALCORN DRIVE — Address
General Information City/Town CORINTH — City/Town
General Information Count of Facility MORT Measures 7 — 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 11 — 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 1 — Count of MORT Measures Worse
General Information Count of READM Measures Better 0 — Count of READM Measures Better
General Information Count of READM Measures No Different 8 — 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 1 — Count of Safety Measures Better
General Information Count of Safety Measures No Different 6 — Count of Safety Measures No Different
General Information Count of Safety Measures Worse 0 — Count of Safety Measures Worse
General Information County/Parish ALCORN — County/Parish
General Information Emergency Services Yes — Emergency Services
General Information Facility ID 250009 — Facility ID
General Information Facility Name MAGNOLIA REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER — Facility Name
General Information Hospital overall rating 3 — Hospital overall rating
General Information Hospital overall rating footnote — — Hospital overall rating footnote
General Information Hospital Ownership Voluntary non-profit - Other — 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 MS — State
General Information TE Group Footnote — — TE Group Footnote
General Information TE Group Measure Count 12 — TE Group Measure Count
General Information Telephone Number (662) 293-1000 — Telephone Number
General Information ZIP Code 38834 — ZIP Code
HAC Reduction Program fiscal_year 2,026 — fiscal_year
HAC Reduction Program measures — cauti — sir 0.56 — measures.cauti.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — cdi — sir 0.54 — measures.cdi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — clabsi — sir 1.01 — measures.clabsi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — mrsa — sir 0 — measures.mrsa.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — ssi — sir 3.51 — measures.ssi.sir
HAC Reduction Program payment_reduction No — payment_reduction
HAC Reduction Program total_hac_score 0.28 — 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 0.94 — Value
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Excess readmission ratio 1.00 0.9995 p52 READM-30-AMI-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Expected readmission rate 12.5% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of discharges 119 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of readmissions 15 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Predicted readmission rate 12.5% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Excess readmission ratio 0.96 1.0000 p32 READM-30-CABG-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Expected readmission rate 9.8% — READM-30-CABG-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Predicted readmission rate 9.3% — READM-30-CABG-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Excess readmission ratio 0.98 0.9969 p31 READM-30-COPD-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Expected readmission rate 19.0% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of discharges 160 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of readmissions 28 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Predicted readmission rate 18.6% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Excess readmission ratio 0.92 0.9983 p8 READM-30-HF-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Expected readmission rate 20.3% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of discharges 366 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of readmissions 62 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Predicted readmission rate 18.6% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Excess readmission ratio 1.30 0.9916 p96 READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Expected readmission rate 4.9% — READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Number of discharges 234 — READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Number of readmissions 18 — READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Predicted readmission rate 6.4% — READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Excess readmission ratio 1.04 0.9955 p77 READM-30-PN-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Expected readmission rate 16.7% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of discharges 536 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of readmissions 96 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Predicted readmission rate 17.4% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Value-Based Purchasing Clinical Outcomes 2.92 5.00 p29 clinical_outcomes_score
Value-Based Purchasing Efficiency & Cost Reduction 7.50 2.50 p67 efficiency_score
Value-Based Purchasing Person & Community Engagement 17.75 8.75 p92 person_community_score
Value-Based Purchasing Safety 5.42 10.00 p15 safety_score
Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score 33.58 29.50 p65 total_performance_score
Methodology

Full methodology →