Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"
(NGXiRdbQS) |
(I'm originally from Dublin but now live in Edinburgh <a href=" http://fosterfriendsnc.com/mission/ ">celexa 40</a> Each one illustrates the reality that even as we strive to improve, each change has) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | I'm originally from Dublin but now live in Edinburgh <a href=" http://fosterfriendsnc.com/mission/ ">celexa 40</a> Each one illustrates the reality that even as we strive to improve, each change has limitations and the result will be inherently imperfect. One change in the latest rankings is a case in point. We took advantage of a new version of a federal programming tool used by those who analyze hospitals' performance in certain patient safety measures. This update makes it possible to exclude patients who already had conditions when they were admitted that might have a negative impact on a hospital's patient-safety scores. Someone recovering from pneumonia, for example, would be at risk for respiratory problems after surgery, one of six types of events we tabulate. Removing these present-on-admission cases, or POAs, kept hospitals from being penalized unfairly. Many hospitals undoubtedly benefited from the change, with higher overall scores. But not all hospitals are diligent about identifying POA cases and coding them appropriately. The playing field, with regard to this measure, will not be level until they do. Lagging hospitals not only will derive no benefit from the change but will be penalized relative to hospitals that do a good job of taking these patients out of the Best Hospitals equation. | |
Revision as of 18:35, 4 September 2014
I'm originally from Dublin but now live in Edinburgh <a href=" http://fosterfriendsnc.com/mission/ ">celexa 40</a> Each one illustrates the reality that even as we strive to improve, each change has limitations and the result will be inherently imperfect. One change in the latest rankings is a case in point. We took advantage of a new version of a federal programming tool used by those who analyze hospitals' performance in certain patient safety measures. This update makes it possible to exclude patients who already had conditions when they were admitted that might have a negative impact on a hospital's patient-safety scores. Someone recovering from pneumonia, for example, would be at risk for respiratory problems after surgery, one of six types of events we tabulate. Removing these present-on-admission cases, or POAs, kept hospitals from being penalized unfairly. Many hospitals undoubtedly benefited from the change, with higher overall scores. But not all hospitals are diligent about identifying POA cases and coding them appropriately. The playing field, with regard to this measure, will not be level until they do. Lagging hospitals not only will derive no benefit from the change but will be penalized relative to hospitals that do a good job of taking these patients out of the Best Hospitals equation.