Hospital

GARNET HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER

CCN: 330126 · MIDDLETOWN, NY 10940 · ORANGE County

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

Overview

Address
707 EAST MAIN STREET, MIDDLETOWN, NY 10940
Phone
(845) 343-2424
Hospital Type
Acute Care
Ownership
Non-Profit
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 6 of 7 measures reported
2
4
Better No different Worse
30-day death rates for heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia, COPD, stroke, CABG, and kidney disease.
Safety of Care 8 of 8 measures reported
1
7
Better No different Worse
Healthcare-associated infections and patient safety indicators (PSI-90 composite).
Readmission 10 of 11 measures reported
8
2
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) 349 discharges
0.9991 p49
Heart Failure 918 discharges
1.0625 p83
Pneumonia 939 discharges
1.1083 p93
COPD 475 discharges
0.9848 p38
Hip/Knee Replacement
1.0120 p55
CABG Surgery
0.9942 p47
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.

31.3 p56
Total Performance Score
National median: 29.5
Clinical Outcomes 25% weight
15.8 p95
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
10.4 p50
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
5.0 p19
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: 1.1083
Value-Based Purchasing
31.3 TPS
Above national median
HAC Reduction
No Reduction
HAC Score: 0.1208

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 3.00 No Different Than the National Rate 113
Hybrid_HWM 4.20 No Different Than the National Rate 3,001
MORT_30_AMI 10.40 No Different Than the National Rate 394
MORT_30_CABG 2.20 No Different Than the National Rate 29
MORT_30_COPD 7.00 No Different Than the National Rate 440
MORT_30_HF 9.00 Better Than the National Rate 825
MORT_30_PN 12.80 Better Than the National Rate 916
MORT_30_STK 12.90 No Different Than the National Rate 338
PSI_03 0.08 Better Than the National Rate 11,610
PSI_04 195.94 No Different Than the National Rate 62
PSI_06 0.24 No Different Than the National Rate 12,631
PSI_08 0.30 No Different Than the National Rate 12,844
PSI_09 2.50 No Different Than the National Rate 2,067
PSI_10 1.33 No Different Than the National Rate 571
PSI_11 8.83 No Different Than the National Rate 564
PSI_12 3.83 No Different Than the National Rate 2,100
PSI_13 4.81 No Different Than the National Rate 551
PSI_14 1.52 No Different Than the National Rate 387
PSI_15 0.70 No Different Than the National Rate 2,035
PSI_90 0.81 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 79% —
H_COMP_1_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 4% —
H_COMP_1_U_P: Nurses "usually" communicated well 17% —
H_COMP_1_LINEAR_SCORE: Nurse communication - linear mean score — —
H_COMP_1_STAR_RATING: Nurse communication - star rating — 3
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 2% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_U_P: Nurses "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 10% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_A_P: Nurses "always" listened carefully 76% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 5% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_U_P: Nurses "usually" listened carefully 19% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_A_P: Nurses "always" explained things so they could understand 74% —
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 20% —
H_COMP_2_A_P: Doctors "always" communicated well 74% —
H_COMP_2_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 7% —
H_COMP_2_U_P: Doctors "usually" communicated well 19% —
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 81% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 5% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_U_P: Doctors "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 14% —
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 69% —
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 22% —
H_COMP_5_A_P: Staff "always" explained 59% —
H_COMP_5_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained 22% —
H_COMP_5_U_P: Staff "usually" explained 19% —
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 75% —
H_MED_FOR_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained new medications 9% —
H_MED_FOR_U_P: Staff "usually" explained new medications 16% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_A_P: Staff "always" explained possible side effects 43% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained possible side effects 35% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_U_P: Staff "usually" explained possible side effects 22% —
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 15% —
H_DISCH_HELP_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about help after discharge 85% —
H_SYMPTOMS_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about possible symptoms 15% —
H_SYMPTOMS_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about possible symptoms 85% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_A_P: Room was "always" clean 68% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_SN_P: Room was "sometimes" or "never" clean 10% —
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 — 3
H_QUIET_HSP_A_P: "Always" quiet at night 49% —
H_QUIET_HSP_SN_P: "Sometimes" or "never" quiet at night 13% —
H_QUIET_HSP_U_P: "Usually" quiet at night 38% —
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) 10% —
H_HSP_RATING_7_8: Patients who gave a rating of "7" or "8" (medium) 26% —
H_HSP_RATING_9_10: Patients who gave a rating of "9" or "10" (high) 64% —
H_HSP_RATING_LINEAR_SCORE: Overall hospital rating - linear mean score — —
H_HSP_RATING_STAR_RATING: Overall hospital rating - star rating — 3
H_RECMND_DN: "NO", patients would not recommend the hospital (they probably would not or definitely would not recommend it) 6% —
H_RECMND_DY: "YES", patients would definitely recommend the hospital 62% —
H_RECMND_PY: "YES", patients would probably recommend the hospital 32% —
H_RECMND_LINEAR_SCORE: Recommend hospital - linear mean score — —
H_RECMND_STAR_RATING: Recommend hospital - star rating — 3
H_STAR_RATING: Summary star rating — 3

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 N/A Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_CIUPPER 0.302 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_DOPC 10801.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_ELIGCASES 9.919 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_NUMERATOR 0.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_1_SIR 0.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_CILOWER 0.124 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_CIUPPER 0.939 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_DOPC 10286.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_ELIGCASES 10.277 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_NUMERATOR 4.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_SIR 0.389 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_3_CILOWER 0.192 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CIUPPER 1.454 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_DOPC 233.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_ELIGCASES 6.636 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_NUMERATOR 4.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_SIR 0.603 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CILOWER 0.035 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CIUPPER 3.423 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_DOPC 161.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_ELIGCASES 1.441 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_NUMERATOR 1.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_SIR 0.694 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_CILOWER 0.468 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_CIUPPER 2.117 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_DOPC 104746.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_ELIGCASES 6.540 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_NUMERATOR 7.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_SIR 1.070 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_6_CILOWER 0.540 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_CIUPPER 0.917 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_DOPC 103129.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_ELIGCASES 77.501 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_NUMERATOR 55.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_SIR 0.710 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 very high 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 11.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_HYPO 2.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_ORAE — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
IMM_3 57.0 Healthcare Personnel Vaccination
OP_18a 260.0 Emergency Department
OP_18b 250.0 Emergency Department
OP_18c 690.0 Emergency Department
OP_18d — Emergency Department
OP_22 5.0 Emergency Department
OP_23 87.0 Emergency Department
OP_29 99.0 Colonoscopy care
OP_31 — Cataract surgery outcome
OP_40 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SAFE_USE_OF_OPIOIDS 18.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SEP_1 43.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_3HR 34.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_6HR — Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_3HR 79.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_6HR 80.0 Sepsis Care
STK_02 96.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_03 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_05 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_1 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_2 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure

Unplanned Hospital Visits

Readmission and ED return rates within 30 days of discharge.

Measure Score vs. National
EDAC_30_AMI 5.30 Average Days per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_HF 27.70 More Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_PN 43.50 More Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
Hybrid_HWR 15.60 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_32 12.20 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ADM 10.40 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ED 4.80 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_36 0.90 No Different than expected
READM_30_AMI 13.40 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_CABG 10.50 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_COPD 18.00 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HF 20.80 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HIP_KNEE 4.90 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_PN 17.70 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
1.03

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 94 rows
Source Metric Value National Median Pctl. Raw key
Cost Report Cost-to-Charge Ratio 0.25 — metrics.cost_to_charge_ratio
Cost Report Current Ratio 0.82 — metrics.current_ratio
Cost Report Employees per Bed 7.98 — metrics.employees_per_bed
Cost Report fiscal_year 2,023 — fiscal_year
Cost Report Fund Balance ($) $94,880,633 — metrics.fund_balance
Cost Report Net Income ($) $-55,148,724 — metrics.net_income
Cost Report Net Patient Revenue ($) $566,576,077 — metrics.net_patient_revenue
Cost Report Operating Margin (%) -14.8% — metrics.operating_margin
Cost Report Total Assets ($) $561,304,990 — metrics.total_assets
Cost Report Total Costs ($) $577,078,967 — metrics.total_costs
Cost Report Total Liabilities ($) $457,877,068 — metrics.total_liabilities
Cost Report Total Margin (%) -9.3% — metrics.total_margin
Cost Report Uncompensated Care (%) 2.4% — metrics.uncompensated_care_pct
General Information Address 707 EAST MAIN STREET — Address
General Information City/Town MIDDLETOWN — 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 10 — Count of Facility READM Measures
General Information Count of Facility Safety Measures 8 — 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 2 — Count of MORT Measures Better
General Information Count of MORT Measures No Different 4 — 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 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 2 — 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 7 — Count of Safety Measures No Different
General Information Count of Safety Measures Worse 0 — Count of Safety Measures Worse
General Information County/Parish ORANGE — County/Parish
General Information Emergency Services Yes — Emergency Services
General Information Facility ID 330126 — Facility ID
General Information Facility Name GARNET HEALTH MEDICAL 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 - Private — 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 NY — State
General Information TE Group Footnote — — TE Group Footnote
General Information TE Group Measure Count 12 — TE Group Measure Count
General Information Telephone Number (845) 343-2424 — Telephone Number
General Information ZIP Code 10940 — ZIP Code
HAC Reduction Program fiscal_year 2,026 — fiscal_year
HAC Reduction Program measures — cauti — sir 0.66 — measures.cauti.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — cdi — sir 0.81 — measures.cdi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — clabsi — sir 0.17 — measures.clabsi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — mrsa — sir 0.76 — measures.mrsa.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — ssi — sir 1.40 — measures.ssi.sir
HAC Reduction Program payment_reduction No — payment_reduction
HAC Reduction Program total_hac_score 0.12 — 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 1.03 — Value
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Excess readmission ratio 1.00 0.9995 p49 READM-30-AMI-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Expected readmission rate 14.6% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of discharges 349 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of readmissions 51 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Predicted readmission rate 14.6% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Excess readmission ratio 0.99 1.0000 p47 READM-30-CABG-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Expected readmission rate 10.9% — READM-30-CABG-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Predicted readmission rate 10.9% — READM-30-CABG-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Excess readmission ratio 0.98 0.9969 p38 READM-30-COPD-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Expected readmission rate 19.5% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of discharges 475 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of readmissions 90 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Predicted readmission rate 19.2% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Excess readmission ratio 1.06 0.9983 p83 READM-30-HF-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Expected readmission rate 20.7% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of discharges 918 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of readmissions 206 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Predicted readmission rate 22.0% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Excess readmission ratio 1.01 0.9916 p55 READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Expected readmission rate 7.3% — READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Predicted readmission rate 7.4% — READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Excess readmission ratio 1.11 0.9955 p93 READM-30-PN-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Expected readmission rate 17.1% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of discharges 939 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of readmissions 185 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Predicted readmission rate 18.9% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Value-Based Purchasing Clinical Outcomes 15.83 5.00 p95 clinical_outcomes_score
Value-Based Purchasing Efficiency & Cost Reduction 0.00 2.50 p0 efficiency_score
Value-Based Purchasing Person & Community Engagement 5.00 8.75 p19 person_community_score
Value-Based Purchasing Safety 10.42 10.00 p50 safety_score
Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score 31.25 29.50 p56 total_performance_score
Methodology

Full methodology →