CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER - MISSION BERNAL

Acute Care Hospitals San Francisco, CA Emergency Services
4/5
Overall Rating
4/5
Hospital Type
Acute Care Hospitals
Ownership
Voluntary non-profit - Church
Emergency
Yes

Hospital Information

Facility NameCALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER - MISSION BERNAL
Address3555 CESAR CHAVEZ
San Francisco, CA 94110
CountySAN FRANCISCO
Hospital TypeAcute Care Hospitals
OwnershipVoluntary non-profit - Church
Emergency ServicesYes
Phone(415) 641-6562

Quality Measures & Clinical Outcomes

Other Measures

Measure Score vs. National
Emergency department volume medium
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 Based on 1,252 patients 1
Hospital Harm - Opioid Related Adverse Events 5 Not Available
Hybrid Hospital-Wide All-Cause Risk Standardized Mortality Rate Based on 651 patients 3.8 No Different Than the National Rate
Safe Use of Opioids - Concurrent Prescribing Based on 1,564 patients 19
Severe Sepsis 3-Hour Bundle Based on 88 patients 2 84
Severe Sepsis 6-Hour Bundle Based on 63 patients 2 95

Complications

Measure Score vs. National
Rate of complications for hip/knee replacement patients Based on 372 patients 2.1 No Different Than the National Rate

Healthcare-Associated Infections

Measure Score vs. National
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 8 N/A No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 2.117 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection: Number of Device Days 1520 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 1.415 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 0 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards) 0.000 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 0.031 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 3.022 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Number of Urinary Catheter Days 1609 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 1.632 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 1 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards) 0.613 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Lower Confidence Limit 8 N/A No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Upper Confidence Limit 2.723 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Number of Procedures 47 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Predicted Cases 1.100 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Observed Cases 0 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery 0.000 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Lower Confidence Limit 13 Not Available Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Upper Confidence Limit 13 Not Available Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Number of Procedures 66 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Predicted Cases 0.486 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Observed Cases 0 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy 13 Not Available Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia: Lower Confidence Limit 0.171 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Upper Confidence Limit 3.371 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Patient Days 24315 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Predicted Cases 1.960 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Observed Cases 2 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia 1.020 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Lower Confidence Limit 0.097 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Upper Confidence Limit 0.497 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Patient Days 24315 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Predicted Cases 25.127 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Observed Cases 6 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff) 0.239 Better than the National Benchmark

Immunization

Measure Score vs. National
Healthcare workers given influenza vaccination Based on 661 patients 80

Mortality

Measure Score vs. National
Death rate for heart attack patients 1 Not Available Number of Cases Too Small
Death rate for CABG surgery patients 5 Not Available Not Available
Death rate for COPD patients Based on 38 patients 8.9 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for heart failure patients Based on 165 patients 9.9 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for pneumonia patients Based on 132 patients 13.4 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for stroke patients 1 Not Available Number of Cases Too Small

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 400 patients 218
Average (median) time patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit A lower number of minutes is better Based on 337 patients 199
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 Based on 52 patients 308
Average (median) time transfer patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit. A lower number of minutes is better Based on 11 patients 525
Left before being seen Based on 24,448 patients 4
Head CT results 1 Not Available
Endoscopy/polyp surveillance: appropriate follow-up interval for normal colonoscopy in average risk patients 1 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 2,291 patients 0.27 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate among surgical inpatients with serious treatable complications Based on 28 patients 163.19 No Different Than the National Rate
Iatrogenic pneumothorax rate Based on 2,912 patients 0.19 No Different Than the National Rate
In-hospital fall-associated fracture rate Based on 2,681 patients 0.24 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma rate Based on 755 patients 2.46 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative acute kidney injury requiring dialysis rate Based on 425 patients 1.61 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative respiratory failure rate Based on 431 patients 7.36 No Different Than the National Rate
Perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis rate Based on 787 patients 4.07 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative sepsis rate Based on 401 patients 5.47 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative wound dehiscence rate Based on 105 patients 1.70 No Different Than the National Rate
Abdominopelvic accidental puncture or laceration rate Based on 336 patients 1.24 No Different Than the National Rate
CMS Medicare PSI 90: Patient safety and adverse events composite 0.87 No Different Than the National Value

Sepsis Care

Measure Score vs. National
Appropriate care for severe sepsis and septic shock Based on 88 patients 2 72
Septic Shock 3-Hour Bundle Based on 14 patients 2 71
Septic Shock 6-Hour Bundle 1, 2 Not Available

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 Based on 3,120 patients 94
Intensive Care Unit Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Based on 473 patients 99

Patient Experience (HCAHPS Survey)

Based on 526 completed surveys. Response rate: 17%.

Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" communicated well

Response: 78% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 4% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Usually" communicated well

Response: 18% Score: Not Applicable

Nurse communication - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 91

Nurse communication - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 87% 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: 11% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 74% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 4% 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: 72% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 5% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 23% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Always" communicated well

Response: 82% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 4% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Usually" communicated well

Response: 14% Score: Not Applicable

Doctor communication - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 93

Doctor communication - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 89% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 1% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 10% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 80% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 4% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 16% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 78% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 5% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 17% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 60% 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: 18% Score: Not Applicable

Communication about medicines - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 75

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: 72% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 13% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 15% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 47% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 31% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 22% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 13% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 87% Score: Not Applicable

Discharge information - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 87

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: 12% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 88% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 13% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 87% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 77% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 7% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 16% Score: Not Applicable

Cleanliness - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 90

Cleanliness - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 59% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 10% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 31% Score: Not Applicable

Quietness - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 83

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: 6% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 17% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 77% Score: Not Applicable

Overall hospital rating - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 90

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: 3% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would definitely recommend the hospital

Response: 79% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would probably recommend the hospital

Response: 18% Score: Not Applicable

Recommend hospital - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 91

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 4/5
  • Emergency Yes
  • Measures 88 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 CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER - MISSION BERNAL

CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER - MISSION BERNAL is a acute care hospitals located in San Francisco, California. The facility is voluntary non-profit - church owned and provides emergency services. It has an overall quality rating of 4 out of 5 stars from CMS. This hospital has 88 quality measures on record, covering areas such as mortality, readmission rates, complications, and patient safety. Patient experience is measured through the HCAHPS survey, with 526 surveys available for review.