Comparison Organizations with Benchmark Data
Comparison Organizations with Benchmark Data
Health facilities offer different quality care based upon the competency of staffs and the availability of medical tools. Persons seeking medical services should take into account quality aspects of care even as they leverage on the cost efficiency of one facility compared to another. The purpose of this paper is to compare two distinct health institutions based on their performance in quality care.
Description of Two Organizations
The first chosen care facility is the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (CSMC) where I did my clinical practicums as a nurse student four years ago. The facility is a non-profit institution located in Beverly Grove in Los Angeles, California. The hospital has a bed capacity of 958 and is also a multi-specialty academic health science for the training of students enrolled in health science courses. The facility is a Level I Trauma Center preferred by both for pediatrics and adults. It is a rehabilitation center for patients with anxiety disorders and provided trauma-related services such as surgery. The Joint Commission accredited Cedars-Sinai for the treatment of stroke, surgery as well as neonat
Comparison Organizations with Benchmark Data
al and pregnancy related complications. The facility is ranked fourth in the entire western United States of America.
The second facility I chose is the Dignity Health-California Hospital Medical Center (CHMC). The care center is located in Los Angeles, California. The facility has a 318-bed capacity, and the emergency department offers treatment to over 70,000 patients annually. CHMC is a Level II Trauma Center. It also operates cardiology, orthopedics, intensive care unit as well as obstetrics and gynecology departments. In 2013, the facility received an accreditation from the Joint Commission as a certified primary stroke center. CHMC also received the Flu Compliance Award in 2014 as well as the National Patient Satisfaction Award.
Comparison of Two Organizations
The first comparison of the two facilities is based on the examination of the (HCAHPS) Hospital Consumer
Comparison Organizations with Benchmark Data
Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems scores. According to Astier-Peña et al. (2016), the latter is used to measure patient experience based on in-patient services and care is ranked as per 10-point scale. Based on the patients surveyed, the HCAHPS for CSMC was rated at 65% for its emergency services in 2018. This followed a drop based on the previous year results where the results stood at 67%. The patient satisfaction at the inpatient units was rated at 83% in 2018, an improvement from the previous year. However, the outpatient services were estimated at 92% in 2018 and have since recorded an improvement giving the overall 4.0-star rating. The CHMC facility, on the other hand, received a 2.5-star rating at 54% based on its implementation of the HCAHPS. This indicates dissatisfaction of patients with quality services especially with regard to pediatrics and postpartum care.
Howell et al. (2015) vouch for comparison of the two facilities based on the report of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). For the CHMC, the Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) was low at 0.85 while Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections (MRSA BSI) rated at 0.87. Clostridium difficile diarrhea infections (CDI) was recorded at 0.85, and the surgical site infections (SSI) rated at 0.89 in the standardized infection ratio (SIR). As for the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the CLABSI was lower than the national benchmark a recorded at 0.7. MSRA was rated at 0.3 while colon surgical site infection ratio recorded at 0.7 compared to the California benchmark of 0.9.
Analysis of Factors that Contribute to Performance Measures
Different values for performance measurements are recorded in the two health facilities. The Cedars-Sinai Medical Center received a 4.0-star rating compared to the 2.5-star rating for CHMC. The higher the star rating the better the quality of healthcare administered to patients. HAI and the HCAHPS for the two facilities were analyzed based on the 2018 findings. However, evidenced-based measures for each facility could not be ascertained as the performance measurements relied on the report provided by patients following a one month study in care centers.
Data Standardization to Improve Quality Comparison Measures
Duplechan (2016) ascertains the effectiveness in quality comparison since the information on HAI and the HCAHPS is based on raw data from patients. The quality measures of the information from the respondents are compared with the databases in the electronic health records (EHR) systems for each of the care facilities to ascertain the accuracies in the comparison of patient care. According to Astier-Peña et al. (2016), EHR guarantees reliable and standardized information regarding the current information on performance measurement for care facilities. Neuhausen et al. (2014) indicates that the report complements the qualitative data availed by patients as per their perception of care. As such, the gaps in quality care can be identified by the hospital administrators in a bid to respond to poor service delivery.
Conclusion
Patients determine the quality performance measurements based on their perception of health service delivery. The study delved into a comparison analysis of care in the two facilities in Los Angeles, California. The performance measurements were leveraged on HAI and the HCAHPS in which Cedars-Sinai Medical Center was rated best compared to Dignity Health-California Hospital Medical Center. Patients in Los Angeles and with close proximity to both the facilities would prefer Cedars-Sinai Medical Center to the CHMC for quality care.
References
Astier-Peña, M. P., Torijano-Casalengua, M. L., & Olivera-Canadas, G. (2016). Setting priorities for patient safety in primary care. Atencion primaria, 48(1), 3.
Duplechan, L. (2016). Improving HCAHPS scores by offering hospitable service. Health facilities management, 29(4), 44-44.
Howell, A. M., Burns, E. M., Bouras, G., Donaldson, L. J., Athanasiou, T., & Darzi, A. (2015). Can patient safety incident reports be used to compare hospital safety? Results from a quantitative analysis of the English national reporting and learning system data. PloS one, 10(12), e0144107.
Neuhausen, K., Davis, A. C., Needleman, J., Brook, R. H., Zingmond, D., & Roby, D. H. (2014). Disproportionate-share hospital payment reductions may threaten the financial stability of safety-net hospitals. Health Affairs, 33(6), 988-996.