ASCENSION ALL SAINTS HOSPITAL

Acute Care Hospitals Racine, WI Emergency Services
3/5
Overall Rating
3/5
Hospital Type
Acute Care Hospitals
Ownership
Voluntary non-profit - Church
Emergency
Yes

Hospital Information

Facility NameASCENSION ALL SAINTS HOSPITAL
Address3801 SPRING ST
Racine, WI 53405
CountyRACINE
Hospital TypeAcute Care Hospitals
OwnershipVoluntary non-profit - Church
Emergency ServicesYes
Phone(262) 687-4011

Quality Measures & Clinical Outcomes

Other Measures

Measure Score vs. National
Emergency department volume 5 Not Available
Global Malnutrition Composite Score 5 Not Available
Global Malnutrition Composite Score: Malnutrition Diagnosis Documented 5 Not Available
Global Malnutrition Composite Score: Malnutrition Risk Screening 5 Not Available
Global Malnutrition Composite Score: Nutrition Assessment 5 Not Available
Global Malnutrition Composite Score: Nutritional Care Plan 5 Not Available
Hospital Harm - Severe Hyperglycemia 5 Not Available
Hospital Harm - Severe Hypoglycemia 5 Not Available
Hospital Harm - Opioid Related Adverse Events 5 Not Available
Hybrid Hospital-Wide All-Cause Risk Standardized Mortality Rate Based on 344 patients 29 4.4 No Different Than the National Rate
Safe Use of Opioids - Concurrent Prescribing 5 Not Available
Severe Sepsis 3-Hour Bundle Based on 50 patients 2, 3, 29 90
Severe Sepsis 6-Hour Bundle Based on 31 patients 2, 3, 29 100

Complications

Measure Score vs. National
Rate of complications for hip/knee replacement patients Based on 26 patients 29 3.4 No Different Than the National Rate

Healthcare-Associated Infections

Measure Score vs. National
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 29 0.544 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 29 4.129 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection: Number of Device Days 3, 29 2499 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 3, 29 2.337 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 3, 29 4 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards) 3, 29 1.712 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 29 0.145 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 29 2.857 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Number of Urinary Catheter Days 3, 29 2244 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 3, 29 2.313 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 3, 29 2 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards) 3, 29 0.865 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Lower Confidence Limit 13, 29 Not Available Not Available
SSI - Colon Surgery: Upper Confidence Limit 13, 29 Not Available Not Available
SSI - Colon Surgery: Number of Procedures 3, 29 20 Not Available
SSI - Colon Surgery: Predicted Cases 3, 29 0.568 Not Available
SSI - Colon Surgery: Observed Cases 3, 29 0 Not Available
SSI - Colon Surgery 3, 13, 29 Not Available Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Lower Confidence Limit 13, 29 Not Available Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Upper Confidence Limit 13, 29 Not Available Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Number of Procedures 3, 29 48 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Predicted Cases 3, 29 0.394 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Observed Cases 3, 29 1 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy 3, 13, 29 Not Available Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia: Lower Confidence Limit 13, 29 Not Available Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia: Upper Confidence Limit 13, 29 Not Available Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia: Patient Days 3, 29 21333 Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia: Predicted Cases 3, 29 0.948 Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia: Observed Cases 3, 29 0 Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia 3, 13, 29 Not Available Not Available
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Lower Confidence Limit 29 0.039 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Upper Confidence Limit 29 0.767 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Patient Days 3, 29 18684 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Predicted Cases 3, 29 8.619 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Observed Cases 3, 29 2 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff) 3, 29 0.232 Better than the National Benchmark

Immunization

Measure Score vs. National
Healthcare workers given influenza vaccination Based on 2,659 patients 90

Mortality

Measure Score vs. National
Death rate for heart attack patients Based on 82 patients 29 12.9 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for CABG surgery patients 1 Not Available Number of Cases Too Small
Death rate for COPD patients Based on 72 patients 29 8.3 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for heart failure patients Based on 160 patients 29 12.1 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for pneumonia patients Based on 216 patients 29 17.8 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for stroke patients Based on 85 patients 29 15.6 No Different Than the National Rate

Outpatient Procedures

Measure Score vs. National
Average (median) time all patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit, including psychiatric/mental health patients and patients who were transferred to another facility. A lower number of minutes is better Based on 189 patients 3, 29 146
Average (median) time patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit A lower number of minutes is better Based on 179 patients 3, 29 145
Average (median) time patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit- Psychiatric/Mental Health Patients. A lower number of minutes is better 1, 3, 29 Not Available
Average (median) time transfer patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit. A lower number of minutes is better 1, 3, 29 Not Available
Left before being seen 5 Not Available
Head CT results Based on 12 patients 3, 29 58
Endoscopy/polyp surveillance: appropriate follow-up interval for normal colonoscopy in average risk patients 5 Not Available
Improvement in Patient's Visual Function within 90 Days Following Cataract Surgery 5 Not Available
ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) 5 Not Available

Patient Safety

Measure Score vs. National
Pressure ulcer rate Based on 1,551 patients 29 0.31 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate among surgical inpatients with serious treatable complications 1 Not Available Number of Cases Too Small
Iatrogenic pneumothorax rate Based on 2,175 patients 29 0.19 No Different Than the National Rate
In-hospital fall-associated fracture rate Based on 2,183 patients 29 0.25 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma rate Based on 303 patients 29 2.17 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative acute kidney injury requiring dialysis rate Based on 68 patients 29 1.64 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative respiratory failure rate Based on 71 patients 29 8.27 No Different Than the National Rate
Perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis rate Based on 320 patients 29 3.49 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative sepsis rate Based on 68 patients 29 4.91 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative wound dehiscence rate Based on 68 patients 29 1.70 No Different Than the National Rate
Abdominopelvic accidental puncture or laceration rate Based on 339 patients 29 1.26 No Different Than the National Rate
CMS Medicare PSI 90: Patient safety and adverse events composite 29 0.86 No Different Than the National Value

Sepsis Care

Measure Score vs. National
Appropriate care for severe sepsis and septic shock Based on 50 patients 2, 3, 29 76
Septic Shock 3-Hour Bundle Based on 26 patients 2, 3, 29 73
Septic Shock 6-Hour Bundle Based on 18 patients 2, 3, 29 100

Stroke Care

Measure Score vs. National
Discharged on Antithrombotic Therapy 5 Not Available
Anticoagulation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter 5 Not Available
Antithrombotic Therapy by End of Hospital Day 2 5 Not Available

Venous Thromboembolism

Measure Score vs. National
Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis 5 Not Available
Intensive Care Unit Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis 5 Not Available

Patient Experience (HCAHPS Survey)

Based on 167 completed surveys. Response rate: 15%.

Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" communicated well

Response: 75% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Sometimes" or "Never" communicated well

Response: 5% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Usually" communicated well

Response: 20% Score: Not Applicable

Nurse communication - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 90

Nurse communication - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" treated them with courtesy and respect

Response: 84% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Sometimes" or "Never" treated them with courtesy and respect

Response: 2% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Usually" treated them with courtesy and respect

Response: 14% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" listened carefully to them

Response: 72% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Sometimes" or "Never" listened carefully to them

Response: 6% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Usually" listened carefully to them

Response: 22% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" explained things in a way they could understand

Response: 70% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Sometimes" or "Never" explained things in a way they could understand

Response: 8% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Usually" explained things in a way they could understand

Response: 22% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Always" communicated well

Response: 76% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Sometimes" or "Never" communicated well

Response: 6% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Usually" communicated well

Response: 18% Score: Not Applicable

Doctor communication - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 90

Doctor communication - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Always" treated them with courtesy and respect

Response: 85% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Sometimes" or "Never" treated them with courtesy and respect

Response: 6% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Usually" treated them with courtesy and respect

Response: 9% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Always" listened carefully to them

Response: 74% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Sometimes" or "Never" listened carefully to them

Response: 6% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Usually" listened carefully to them

Response: 20% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Always" explained things in a way they could understand

Response: 69% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Sometimes" or "Never" explained things in a way they could understand

Response: 6% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Usually" explained things in a way they could understand

Response: 25% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that staff "Always" explained about medicines before giving it to them

Response: 59% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that staff "Sometimes" or "Never" explained about medicines before giving it to them

Response: 22% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that staff "Usually" explained about medicines before giving it to them

Response: 19% Score: Not Applicable

Communication about medicines - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 76

Communication about medicines - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that when receiving new medication the staff "Always" communicated what the medication was for

Response: 73% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that when receiving new medication the staff "Sometimes" or "Never" communicated what the medication was for

Response: 9% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that when receiving new medication the staff "Usually" communicated what the medication was for.

Response: 18% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that when receiving new medication the staff "Always" discussed possible side effects

Response: 45% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that when receiving new medication the staff "Sometimes" or "Never" discussed possible side effects

Response: 35% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that when receiving new medication the staff "Usually" discussed possible side effects

Response: 20% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that NO, they were not given information about what to do during their recovery at home

Response: 14% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that YES, they were given information about what to do during their recovery at home

Response: 86% Score: Not Applicable

Discharge information - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 86

Discharge information - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that NO, they did not discuss whether they would need help after discharge

Response: 13% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that YES, they did discuss whether they would need help after discharge

Response: 87% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that NO, they did not receive written information about possible symptoms to look out for after discharge

Response: 15% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that YES, they did receive written information about possible symptoms to look out for after discharge

Response: 85% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their room and bathroom were "Always" clean

Response: 69% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their room and bathroom were "Sometimes" or "Never" clean

Response: 8% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their room and bathroom were "Usually" clean

Response: 23% Score: Not Applicable

Cleanliness - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 87

Cleanliness - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that the area around their room was "Always" quiet at night

Response: 50% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that the area around their room was "Sometimes" or "Never" quiet at night

Response: 13% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that the area around their room was "Usually" quiet at night

Response: 37% Score: Not Applicable

Quietness - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 78

Quietness - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who gave their hospital a rating of 6 or lower on a scale from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest)

Response: 14% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who gave their hospital a rating of 7 or 8 on a scale from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest)

Response: 27% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who gave their hospital a rating of 9 or 10 on a scale from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest)

Response: 59% Score: Not Applicable

Overall hospital rating - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 83

Overall hospital rating - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported NO, they would probably not or definitely not recommend the hospital

Response: 12% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would definitely recommend the hospital

Response: 55% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would probably recommend the hospital

Response: 33% Score: Not Applicable

Recommend hospital - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 80

Recommend hospital - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

Summary star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

Quick Facts

  • Type Acute Care Hospitals
  • Ownership Voluntary non-profit - Church
  • Rating 3/5
  • Emergency Yes
  • Measures 87 recorded

Data Source

Hospital data from CMS Hospital Compare. Quality measures and patient experience surveys are updated periodically by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

About ASCENSION ALL SAINTS HOSPITAL

ASCENSION ALL SAINTS HOSPITAL is a acute care hospitals located in Racine, Wisconsin. The facility is voluntary non-profit - church owned and provides emergency services. It has an overall quality rating of 3 out of 5 stars from CMS. This hospital has 87 quality measures on record, covering areas such as mortality, readmission rates, complications, and patient safety. Patient experience is measured through the HCAHPS survey, with 167 surveys available for review.