Hospital

INOVA FAIR OAKS HOSPITAL

CCN: 490101 · FAIRFAX, VA 22033 · FAIRFAX County

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

Overview

Address
3600 JOSEPH SIEWICK DRIVE, FAIRFAX, VA 22033
Phone
(703) 391-4170
Hospital Type
Acute Care
Ownership
Non-Profit (Other)
Emergency Services
No
Birthing Friendly
Yes
5 /5
★★★★★
CMS Overall Rating
p89
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
2
5
Better No different Worse
Healthcare-associated infections and patient safety indicators (PSI-90 composite).
Readmission 7 of 11 measures reported
6
1
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 12 of 12 measures reported
12 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)
— Not reported
Heart Failure 416 discharges
0.8433 p0
Pneumonia 421 discharges
1.0912 p90
COPD
0.9723 p26
Hip/Knee Replacement
1.0700 p70
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 above the national median, suggesting a positive payment adjustment.

42.5 p84
Total Performance Score
National median: 29.5
Clinical Outcomes 25% weight
5.5 p52
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
12.5 p63
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
14.5 p82
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
10.0 p76
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: 1.0912
Value-Based Purchasing
42.5 TPS
Above national median
HAC Reduction
No Reduction
HAC Score: -0.6791

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 4.20 No Different Than the National Rate 52
Hybrid_HWM 3.40 Better Than the National Rate 1,505
MORT_30_AMI 12.60 No Different Than the National Rate 48
MORT_30_CABG — — —
MORT_30_COPD 6.90 No Different Than the National Rate 65
MORT_30_HF 9.90 No Different Than the National Rate 388
MORT_30_PN 16.10 No Different Than the National Rate 407
MORT_30_STK 11.30 No Different Than the National Rate 132
PSI_03 0.17 No Different Than the National Rate 4,204
PSI_04 169.79 No Different Than the National Rate 61
PSI_06 0.17 No Different Than the National Rate 5,381
PSI_08 0.30 No Different Than the National Rate 5,412
PSI_09 2.23 No Different Than the National Rate 1,186
PSI_10 1.43 No Different Than the National Rate 666
PSI_11 8.05 No Different Than the National Rate 669
PSI_12 3.32 No Different Than the National Rate 1,299
PSI_13 7.15 No Different Than the National Rate 625
PSI_14 1.55 No Different Than the National Rate 500
PSI_15 1.09 No Different Than the National Rate 1,440
PSI_90 0.87 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 77% —
H_COMP_1_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 4% —
H_COMP_1_U_P: Nurses "usually" communicated well 19% —
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 87% —
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 11% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_A_P: Nurses "always" listened carefully 74% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 4% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_U_P: Nurses "usually" listened carefully 22% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_A_P: Nurses "always" explained things so they could understand 70% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" explained things so they could understand 5% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_U_P: Nurses "usually" explained things so they could understand 25% —
H_COMP_2_A_P: Doctors "always" communicated well 76% —
H_COMP_2_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 5% —
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 — 3
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 3% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_U_P: Doctors "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 13% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_A_P: Doctors "always" listened carefully 73% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 7% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_U_P: Doctors "usually" listened carefully 20% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_A_P: Doctors "always" explained things so they could understand 71% —
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 23% —
H_COMP_5_A_P: Staff "always" explained 62% —
H_COMP_5_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained 20% —
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 76% —
H_MED_FOR_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained new medications 7% —
H_MED_FOR_U_P: Staff "usually" explained new medications 17% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_A_P: Staff "always" explained possible side effects 48% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained possible side effects 32% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_U_P: Staff "usually" explained possible side effects 20% —
H_COMP_6_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients this information 13% —
H_COMP_6_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients this information 87% —
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 13% —
H_DISCH_HELP_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about help after discharge 87% —
H_SYMPTOMS_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients information about possible symptoms 13% —
H_SYMPTOMS_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about possible symptoms 87% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_A_P: Room was "always" clean 78% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_SN_P: Room was "sometimes" or "never" clean 5% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_U_P: Room was "usually" clean 17% —
H_CLEAN_LINEAR_SCORE: Cleanliness - linear mean score — —
H_CLEAN_STAR_RATING: Cleanliness - star rating — 4
H_QUIET_HSP_A_P: "Always" quiet at night 59% —
H_QUIET_HSP_SN_P: "Sometimes" or "never" quiet at night 11% —
H_QUIET_HSP_U_P: "Usually" quiet at night 30% —
H_QUIET_LINEAR_SCORE: Quietness - linear mean score — —
H_QUIET_STAR_RATING: Quietness - star rating — 3
H_HSP_RATING_0_6: Patients who gave a rating of "6" or lower (low) 5% —
H_HSP_RATING_7_8: Patients who gave a rating of "7" or "8" (medium) 16% —
H_HSP_RATING_9_10: Patients who gave a rating of "9" or "10" (high) 79% —
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) 3% —
H_RECMND_DY: "YES", patients would definitely recommend the hospital 77% —
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 — 5
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 0.027 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_CIUPPER 2.622 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_DOPC 2106.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_ELIGCASES 1.881 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_NUMERATOR 1.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_SIR 0.532 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_CILOWER N/A Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_CIUPPER 0.818 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_DOPC 3625.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_ELIGCASES 3.661 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_NUMERATOR 0.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_SIR 0.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_3_CILOWER 0.114 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CIUPPER 1.220 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_DOPC 252.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_ELIGCASES 6.695 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_NUMERATOR 3.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_SIR 0.448 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CILOWER — —
HAI_4_CIUPPER — —
HAI_4_DOPC 42.000 —
HAI_4_ELIGCASES 0.305 —
HAI_4_NUMERATOR 1.000 —
HAI_4_SIR — —
HAI_5_CILOWER N/A No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_CIUPPER 1.640 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_DOPC 47677.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_ELIGCASES 1.827 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 0.102 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_CIUPPER 0.522 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_DOPC 38218.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_ELIGCASES 23.911 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_NUMERATOR 6.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_SIR 0.251 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 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 1.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_ORAE — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
IMM_3 98.0 Healthcare Personnel Vaccination
OP_18a 164.0 Emergency Department
OP_18b 162.0 Emergency Department
OP_18c 150.0 Emergency Department
OP_18d 287.0 Emergency Department
OP_22 1.0 Emergency Department
OP_23 83.0 Emergency Department
OP_29 67.0 Colonoscopy care
OP_31 — Cataract surgery outcome
OP_40 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SAFE_USE_OF_OPIOIDS 10.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SEP_1 73.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_3HR 86.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_6HR 94.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_3HR 83.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_6HR 95.0 Sepsis Care
STK_02 100.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_03 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_05 99.0 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 — Number of Cases Too Small
EDAC_30_HF -24.20 Fewer Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_PN 27.70 More Days Than Average per 100 Discharges
Hybrid_HWR 14.30 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_32 10.90 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ADM 10.50 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ED 5.40 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_36 1.10 No Different than expected
READM_30_AMI — Number of Cases Too Small
READM_30_CABG — —
READM_30_COPD 17.70 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HF 16.50 Better Than the National Rate
READM_30_HIP_KNEE 5.20 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_PN 17.40 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
0.93

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 84 rows
Source Metric Value National Median Pctl. Raw key
Cost Report Cost-to-Charge Ratio 0.30 — metrics.cost_to_charge_ratio
Cost Report Current Ratio 2.17 — metrics.current_ratio
Cost Report Employees per Bed 6.10 — metrics.employees_per_bed
Cost Report fiscal_year 2,023 — fiscal_year
Cost Report Fund Balance ($) $1,173,259,393 — metrics.fund_balance
Cost Report Net Income ($) $161,560,856 — metrics.net_income
Cost Report Net Patient Revenue ($) $440,418,975 — metrics.net_patient_revenue
Cost Report Operating Margin (%) 34.7% — metrics.operating_margin
Cost Report Total Assets ($) $2,104,057,623 — metrics.total_assets
Cost Report Total Costs ($) $323,641,284 — metrics.total_costs
Cost Report Total Liabilities ($) $930,798,230 — metrics.total_liabilities
Cost Report Total Margin (%) 36.0% — metrics.total_margin
Cost Report Uncompensated Care (%) 5.0% — metrics.uncompensated_care_pct
General Information Address 3600 JOSEPH SIEWICK DRIVE — Address
General Information City/Town FAIRFAX — 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 7 — 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 12 — 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 0 — Count of READM Measures Better
General Information Count of READM Measures No Different 6 — Count of READM Measures No Different
General Information Count of READM Measures Worse 1 — Count of READM Measures Worse
General Information Count of Safety Measures Better 2 — Count of Safety Measures Better
General Information Count of Safety Measures No Different 5 — Count of Safety Measures No Different
General Information Count of Safety Measures Worse 0 — Count of Safety Measures Worse
General Information County/Parish FAIRFAX — County/Parish
General Information Emergency Services No — Emergency Services
General Information Facility ID 490101 — Facility ID
General Information Facility Name INOVA FAIR OAKS HOSPITAL — Facility Name
General Information Hospital overall rating 5 — 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 VA — State
General Information TE Group Footnote — — TE Group Footnote
General Information TE Group Measure Count 12 — TE Group Measure Count
General Information Telephone Number (703) 391-4170 — Telephone Number
General Information ZIP Code 22033 — ZIP Code
HAC Reduction Program fiscal_year 2,026 — fiscal_year
HAC Reduction Program measures — cauti — sir 0.38 — measures.cauti.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — cdi — sir 0.22 — measures.cdi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — clabsi — sir 0.29 — measures.clabsi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — mrsa — sir 0.27 — measures.mrsa.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — ssi — sir 0.46 — measures.ssi.sir
HAC Reduction Program payment_reduction No — 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 0.93 — Value
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Excess readmission ratio 0.97 0.9969 p26 READM-30-COPD-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Expected readmission rate 16.7% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Predicted readmission rate 16.2% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Excess readmission ratio 0.84 0.9983 p0 READM-30-HF-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Expected readmission rate 18.8% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of discharges 416 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of readmissions 54 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Predicted readmission rate 15.8% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Excess readmission ratio 1.07 0.9916 p70 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 6.4% — READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Excess readmission ratio 1.09 0.9955 p90 READM-30-PN-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Expected readmission rate 14.6% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of discharges 421 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of readmissions 73 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Predicted readmission rate 16.0% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Value-Based Purchasing Clinical Outcomes 5.50 5.00 p52 clinical_outcomes_score
Value-Based Purchasing Efficiency & Cost Reduction 10.00 2.50 p76 efficiency_score
Value-Based Purchasing Person & Community Engagement 14.50 8.75 p82 person_community_score
Value-Based Purchasing Safety 12.50 10.00 p63 safety_score
Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score 42.50 29.50 p84 total_performance_score
Methodology

Full methodology →