CHRIST HOSPITAL

Acute Care Hospitals Cincinnati, OH Emergency Services
5/5
Overall Rating
5/5
Hospital Type
Acute Care Hospitals
Ownership
Voluntary non-profit - Private
Emergency
Yes

Hospital Information

Facility NameCHRIST HOSPITAL
Address2139 AUBURN AVENUE
Cincinnati, OH 45219
CountyHAMILTON
Hospital TypeAcute Care Hospitals
OwnershipVoluntary non-profit - Private
Emergency ServicesYes
Phone(513) 585-2000

Quality Measures & Clinical Outcomes

Other Measures

Measure Score vs. National
Emergency department volume very high
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 2,550 patients 4.1 No Different Than the National Rate
Safe Use of Opioids - Concurrent Prescribing Based on 7,411 patients 13
Severe Sepsis 3-Hour Bundle Based on 266 patients 2 79
Severe Sepsis 6-Hour Bundle Based on 127 patients 2 96

Complications

Measure Score vs. National
Rate of complications for hip/knee replacement patients Based on 198 patients 3.7 No Different Than the National Rate

Healthcare-Associated Infections

Measure Score vs. National
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 0.249 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 0.691 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection: Number of Device Days 34188 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 35.025 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 15 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards) 0.428 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 0.244 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 0.807 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Number of Urinary Catheter Days 18676 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 23.704 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 11 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards) 0.464 Better than the National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Lower Confidence Limit 0.231 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Upper Confidence Limit 1.398 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Number of Procedures 308 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Predicted Cases 7.929 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Observed Cases 5 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery 0.631 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Lower Confidence Limit 0.537 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Upper Confidence Limit 3.249 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Number of Procedures 394 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Predicted Cases 3.411 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Observed Cases 5 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy 1.466 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Lower Confidence Limit 0.225 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Upper Confidence Limit 1.156 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Patient Days 118863 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Predicted Cases 10.800 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Observed Cases 6 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia 0.556 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Lower Confidence Limit 0.135 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Upper Confidence Limit 0.403 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Patient Days 108479 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Predicted Cases 53.752 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Observed Cases 13 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff) 0.242 Better than the National Benchmark

Immunization

Measure Score vs. National
Healthcare workers given influenza vaccination Based on 9,778 patients 92

Mortality

Measure Score vs. National
Death rate for heart attack patients Based on 255 patients 11.8 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for CABG surgery patients Based on 187 patients 2 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for COPD patients Based on 146 patients 10.3 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for heart failure patients Based on 740 patients 10 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for pneumonia patients Based on 506 patients 13.7 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for stroke patients Based on 181 patients 11.4 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 395 patients 174
Average (median) time patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit A lower number of minutes is better Based on 380 patients 168
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 13 patients 347
Average (median) time transfer patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit. A lower number of minutes is better 1 Not Available
Left before being seen Based on 69,334 patients 3
Head CT results 1 Not Available
Endoscopy/polyp surveillance: appropriate follow-up interval for normal colonoscopy in average risk patients Based on 69 patients 99
Improvement in Patient's Visual Function within 90 Days Following Cataract Surgery 5 Not Available
ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) 1 Not Available

Patient Safety

Measure Score vs. National
Pressure ulcer rate Based on 7,240 patients 0.10 Better Than the National Rate
Death rate among surgical inpatients with serious treatable complications Based on 121 patients 182.60 No Different Than the National Rate
Iatrogenic pneumothorax rate Based on 9,013 patients 0.12 No Different Than the National Rate
In-hospital fall-associated fracture rate Based on 9,752 patients 0.35 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma rate Based on 3,416 patients 2.16 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative acute kidney injury requiring dialysis rate Based on 2,256 patients 1.80 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative respiratory failure rate Based on 2,316 patients 8.81 No Different Than the National Rate
Perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis rate Based on 3,708 patients 2.09 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative sepsis rate Based on 2,192 patients 4.24 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative wound dehiscence rate Based on 886 patients 1.82 No Different Than the National Rate
Abdominopelvic accidental puncture or laceration rate Based on 2,411 patients 1.35 No Different Than the National Rate
CMS Medicare PSI 90: Patient safety and adverse events composite 0.74 Better Than the National Value

Sepsis Care

Measure Score vs. National
Appropriate care for severe sepsis and septic shock Based on 266 patients 2 68
Septic Shock 3-Hour Bundle Based on 92 patients 2 79
Septic Shock 6-Hour Bundle Based on 60 patients 2 92

Stroke Care

Measure Score vs. National
Discharged on Antithrombotic Therapy Based on 253 patients 96
Anticoagulation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter Based on 72 patients 75
Antithrombotic Therapy by End of Hospital Day 2 Based on 218 patients 88

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 2,126 completed surveys. Response rate: 28%.

Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" communicated well

Response: 83% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 3% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Usually" communicated well

Response: 14% Score: Not Applicable

Nurse communication - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 93

Nurse communication - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 90% 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: 8% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 81% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 3% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 16% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 78% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 4% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 18% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Always" communicated well

Response: 83% 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: 13% 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: 2% 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: 81% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 5% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 14% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 77% 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: 18% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 61% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 20% 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: 77

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: 78% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 8% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 14% 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: 32% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 23% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 11% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 89% Score: Not Applicable

Discharge information - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 89

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: 11% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 89% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 11% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 89% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 67% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 11% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 22% Score: Not Applicable

Cleanliness - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 84

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: 9% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 32% 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: 13% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 81% Score: Not Applicable

Overall hospital rating - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 92

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: 84% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would probably recommend the hospital

Response: 13% Score: Not Applicable

Recommend hospital - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 93

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 - Private
  • Rating 5/5
  • 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 CHRIST HOSPITAL

CHRIST HOSPITAL is a acute care hospitals located in Cincinnati, Ohio. The facility is voluntary non-profit - private owned and provides emergency services. It has an overall quality rating of 5 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 2,126 surveys available for review.