Hospital

PROVIDENCE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER EVERETT

CCN: 500014 · EVERETT, WA 98201 · SNOHOMISH County

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

Overview

Address
1321 COLBY AVENUE, EVERETT, WA 98201
Phone
(425) 261-2000
Hospital Type
Acute Care
Ownership
Non-Profit (Church)
Emergency Services
Yes
Birthing Friendly
Yes
2 /5
★★★★★
CMS Overall Rating
p7
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
7
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 9 of 11 measures reported
1
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 does not have excess readmissions triggering HRRP penalties.
Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) 321 discharges
0.9546 p21
Heart Failure 566 discharges
0.9404 p15
Pneumonia 387 discharges
0.9194 p8
COPD 189 discharges
0.9904 p44
Hip/Knee Replacement
0.8203 p9
CABG Surgery
0.8901 p11
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.

30.3 p53
Total Performance Score
National median: 29.5
Clinical Outcomes 25% weight
3.8 p37
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
12.1 p62
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
4.5 p15
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)
Not Penalized
Worst ERR: 0.9904
Value-Based Purchasing
30.3 TPS
Above national median
HAC Reduction
No Reduction
HAC Score: 0.0025

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 2.50 No Different Than the National Rate 216
Hybrid_HWM 3.80 No Different Than the National Rate 2,119
MORT_30_AMI 11.90 No Different Than the National Rate 285
MORT_30_CABG 2.80 No Different Than the National Rate 93
MORT_30_COPD 11.30 No Different Than the National Rate 187
MORT_30_HF 13.10 No Different Than the National Rate 533
MORT_30_PN 17.90 No Different Than the National Rate 393
MORT_30_STK 13.40 No Different Than the National Rate 387
PSI_03 0.82 No Different Than the National Rate 7,004
PSI_04 194.00 No Different Than the National Rate 100
PSI_06 0.13 No Different Than the National Rate 8,628
PSI_08 0.49 Worse Than the National Rate 8,734
PSI_09 1.75 No Different Than the National Rate 2,399
PSI_10 1.63 No Different Than the National Rate 1,127
PSI_11 8.83 No Different Than the National Rate 1,099
PSI_12 2.80 No Different Than the National Rate 2,567
PSI_13 4.79 No Different Than the National Rate 1,098
PSI_14 1.76 No Different Than the National Rate 439
PSI_15 1.15 No Different Than the National Rate 1,392
PSI_90 1.01 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 74% —
H_COMP_1_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 5% —
H_COMP_1_U_P: Nurses "usually" communicated well 21% —
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 80% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 3% —
H_NURSE_RESPECT_U_P: Nurses "usually" treated them with courtesy and respect 17% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_A_P: Nurses "always" listened carefully 71% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_SN_P: Nurses "sometimes" or "never" listened carefully 6% —
H_NURSE_LISTEN_U_P: Nurses "usually" listened carefully 23% —
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 6% —
H_NURSE_EXPLAIN_U_P: Nurses "usually" explained things so they could understand 24% —
H_COMP_2_A_P: Doctors "always" communicated well 75% —
H_COMP_2_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" communicated well 6% —
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 83% —
H_DOCTOR_RESPECT_SN_P: Doctors "sometimes" or "never" treated them with courtesy and respect 4% —
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 8% —
H_DOCTOR_LISTEN_U_P: Doctors "usually" listened carefully 19% —
H_DOCTOR_EXPLAIN_A_P: Doctors "always" explained things so they could understand 70% —
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 24% —
H_COMP_5_A_P: Staff "always" explained 53% —
H_COMP_5_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained 23% —
H_COMP_5_U_P: Staff "usually" explained 24% —
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 67% —
H_MED_FOR_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained new medications 13% —
H_MED_FOR_U_P: Staff "usually" explained new medications 20% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_A_P: Staff "always" explained possible side effects 39% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_SN_P: Staff "sometimes" or "never" explained possible side effects 33% —
H_SIDE_EFFECTS_U_P: Staff "usually" explained possible side effects 28% —
H_COMP_6_N_P: No, staff "did not" give patients this information 14% —
H_COMP_6_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients this information 86% —
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 12% —
H_SYMPTOMS_Y_P: Yes, staff "did" give patients information about possible symptoms 88% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_A_P: Room was "always" clean 65% —
H_CLEAN_HSP_SN_P: Room was "sometimes" or "never" clean 13% —
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 52% —
H_QUIET_HSP_SN_P: "Sometimes" or "never" quiet at night 14% —
H_QUIET_HSP_U_P: "Usually" quiet at night 34% —
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) 13% —
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) 61% —
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) 9% —
H_RECMND_DY: "YES", patients would definitely recommend the hospital 63% —
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 — 3
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 0.379 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_CIUPPER 1.252 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_DOPC 15429.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_ELIGCASES 15.276 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_NUMERATOR 11.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_1_SIR 0.720 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_2_CILOWER 0.117 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_CIUPPER 0.709 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_DOPC 13731.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_ELIGCASES 15.626 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_NUMERATOR 5.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_2_SIR 0.320 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_3_CILOWER 0.966 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_CIUPPER 2.781 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_DOPC 309.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_ELIGCASES 8.247 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_NUMERATOR 14.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_3_SIR 1.698 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CILOWER 0.036 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_CIUPPER 3.569 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_DOPC 166.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_ELIGCASES 1.382 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_NUMERATOR 1.000 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_4_SIR 0.724 No Different than National Benchmark
HAI_5_CILOWER 0.145 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_CIUPPER 0.877 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_DOPC 179210.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_ELIGCASES 12.637 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_NUMERATOR 5.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_5_SIR 0.396 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_CILOWER 0.233 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_CIUPPER 0.491 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_DOPC 166137.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_ELIGCASES 81.319 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_NUMERATOR 28.000 Better than the National Benchmark
HAI_6_SIR 0.344 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 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_HYPO — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
HH_ORAE — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
IMM_3 63.0 Healthcare Personnel Vaccination
OP_18a 231.0 Emergency Department
OP_18b 228.0 Emergency Department
OP_18c 326.0 Emergency Department
OP_18d — Emergency Department
OP_22 3.0 Emergency Department
OP_23 75.0 Emergency Department
OP_29 97.0 Colonoscopy care
OP_31 — Cataract surgery outcome
OP_40 55.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SAFE_USE_OF_OPIOIDS 11.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
SEP_1 79.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_3HR 98.0 Sepsis Care
SEP_SH_6HR 88.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_3HR 90.0 Sepsis Care
SEV_SEP_6HR 91.0 Sepsis Care
STK_02 98.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_03 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
STK_05 93.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_1 — Electronic Clinical Quality Measure
VTE_2 96.0 Electronic Clinical Quality Measure

Unplanned Hospital Visits

Readmission and ED return rates within 30 days of discharge.

Measure Score vs. National
EDAC_30_AMI -1.40 Average Days per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_HF -4.90 Average Days per 100 Discharges
EDAC_30_PN -4.80 Average Days per 100 Discharges
Hybrid_HWR 13.30 Better Than the National Rate
OP_32 12.70 No Different Than the National Rate
OP_35_ADM — Number of Cases Too Small
OP_35_ED — Number of Cases Too Small
OP_36 1.00 No Different than expected
READM_30_AMI 13.00 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_CABG 9.40 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_COPD 18.00 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HF 18.40 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_HIP_KNEE 4.00 No Different Than the National Rate
READM_30_PN 14.80 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
0.93

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 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 5.19 — metrics.current_ratio
Cost Report Employees per Bed 5.11 — metrics.employees_per_bed
Cost Report fiscal_year 2,023 — fiscal_year
Cost Report Fund Balance ($) $326,718,046 — metrics.fund_balance
Cost Report Net Income ($) $-129,381,202 — metrics.net_income
Cost Report Net Patient Revenue ($) $833,117,581 — metrics.net_patient_revenue
Cost Report Operating Margin (%) -18.8% — metrics.operating_margin
Cost Report Total Assets ($) $781,075,884 — metrics.total_assets
Cost Report Total Costs ($) $793,539,500 — metrics.total_costs
Cost Report Total Liabilities ($) $454,357,838 — metrics.total_liabilities
Cost Report Total Margin (%) -15.0% — metrics.total_margin
Cost Report Uncompensated Care (%) 2.0% — metrics.uncompensated_care_pct
General Information Address 1321 COLBY AVENUE — Address
General Information City/Town EVERETT — 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 9 — 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 0 — Count of MORT Measures Better
General Information Count of MORT Measures No Different 7 — 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 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 7 — Count of Safety Measures No Different
General Information Count of Safety Measures Worse 0 — Count of Safety Measures Worse
General Information County/Parish SNOHOMISH — County/Parish
General Information Emergency Services Yes — Emergency Services
General Information Facility ID 500014 — Facility ID
General Information Facility Name PROVIDENCE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER EVERETT — Facility Name
General Information Hospital overall rating 2 — Hospital overall rating
General Information Hospital overall rating footnote — — Hospital overall rating footnote
General Information Hospital Ownership Voluntary non-profit - Church — 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 WA — State
General Information TE Group Footnote — — TE Group Footnote
General Information TE Group Measure Count 12 — TE Group Measure Count
General Information Telephone Number (425) 261-2000 — Telephone Number
General Information ZIP Code 98201 — ZIP Code
HAC Reduction Program fiscal_year 2,026 — fiscal_year
HAC Reduction Program measures — cauti — sir 0.72 — measures.cauti.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — cdi — sir 0.35 — measures.cdi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — clabsi — sir 0.55 — measures.clabsi.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — mrsa — sir 0.38 — measures.mrsa.sir
HAC Reduction Program measures — ssi — sir 1.08 — measures.ssi.sir
HAC Reduction Program payment_reduction No — payment_reduction
HAC Reduction Program total_hac_score 0.00 — 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) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Excess readmission ratio 0.95 0.9995 p21 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 321 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Number of readmissions 36 — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Acute Myocardial Infarction (Heart Attack) — Predicted readmission rate 11.9% — READM-30-AMI-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Excess readmission ratio 0.89 1.0000 p11 READM-30-CABG-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Expected readmission rate 11.3% — READM-30-CABG-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) CABG Surgery — Predicted readmission rate 10.1% — READM-30-CABG-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Excess readmission ratio 0.99 0.9969 p44 READM-30-COPD-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Expected readmission rate 16.9% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of discharges 189 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Number of readmissions 31 — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) COPD — Predicted readmission rate 16.8% — READM-30-COPD-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Excess readmission ratio 0.94 0.9983 p15 READM-30-HF-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Expected readmission rate 18.5% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of discharges 566 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Number of readmissions 94 — READM-30-HF-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Heart Failure — Predicted readmission rate 17.4% — READM-30-HF-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Excess readmission ratio 0.82 0.9916 p9 READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Expected readmission rate 5.1% — READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Hip/Knee Replacement — Predicted readmission rate 4.2% — READM-30-HIP-KNEE-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Excess readmission ratio 0.92 0.9955 p8 READM-30-PN-HRRP.excess_readmission_ratio
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Expected readmission rate 14.8% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.expected_readmission_rate
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of discharges 387 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_discharges
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Number of readmissions 47 — READM-30-PN-HRRP.num_readmissions
Readmissions (HRRP) Pneumonia — Predicted readmission rate 13.6% — READM-30-PN-HRRP.predicted_readmission_rate
Value-Based Purchasing Clinical Outcomes 3.75 5.00 p37 clinical_outcomes_score
Value-Based Purchasing Efficiency & Cost Reduction 10.00 2.50 p76 efficiency_score
Value-Based Purchasing Person & Community Engagement 4.50 8.75 p15 person_community_score
Value-Based Purchasing Safety 12.08 10.00 p62 safety_score
Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score 30.33 29.50 p53 total_performance_score
Methodology

Full methodology →