DELL SETON MED CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TX

Acute Care Hospitals Austin, TX
2/5
Overall Rating
2/5
Hospital Type
Acute Care Hospitals
Ownership
Voluntary non-profit - Private
Emergency
No

Hospital Information

Facility NameDELL SETON MED CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TX
Address601 E 15TH STREET
Austin, TX 78701
CountyTRAVIS
Hospital TypeAcute Care Hospitals
OwnershipVoluntary non-profit - Private
Emergency ServicesNo
Phone(512) 324-7000

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 278 patients 29 4.2 No Different Than the National Rate
Safe Use of Opioids - Concurrent Prescribing Based on 741 patients 29 13
Severe Sepsis 3-Hour Bundle Based on 68 patients 2, 3, 29 69
Severe Sepsis 6-Hour Bundle Based on 41 patients 2, 3, 29 93

Complications

Measure Score vs. National
Rate of complications for hip/knee replacement patients Based on 30 patients 29 3.5 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 0.339 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 29 1.386 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection: Number of Device Days 3, 29 10448 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 3, 29 10.964 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 3, 29 8 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards) 3, 29 0.730 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 29 0.025 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 29 0.485 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Number of Urinary Catheter Days 3, 29 7609 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 3, 29 13.625 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 3, 29 2 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards) 3, 29 0.147 Better than the National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Lower Confidence Limit 29 0.117 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Upper Confidence Limit 29 2.298 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Number of Procedures 3, 29 85 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Predicted Cases 3, 29 2.875 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Observed Cases 3, 29 2 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery 3, 29 0.696 No Different than National Benchmark
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 47 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Predicted Cases 3, 29 0.433 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Observed Cases 3, 29 0 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy 3, 13, 29 Not Available Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia: Lower Confidence Limit 29 0.086 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Upper Confidence Limit 29 1.697 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Patient Days 3, 29 40059 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Predicted Cases 3, 29 3.894 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Observed Cases 3, 29 2 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia 3, 29 0.514 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Lower Confidence Limit 29 0.473 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Upper Confidence Limit 29 1.313 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Patient Days 3, 29 40059 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Predicted Cases 3, 29 18.413 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Observed Cases 3, 29 15 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff) 3, 29 0.815 No Different than National Benchmark

Immunization

Measure Score vs. National
Healthcare workers given influenza vaccination Based on 3,049 patients 92

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 1 Not Available Number of Cases Too Small
Death rate for heart failure patients 1 Not Available Number of Cases Too Small
Death rate for pneumonia patients Based on 61 patients 29 12.7 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for stroke patients Based on 180 patients 29 11.8 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 194 patients 3, 29 247
Average (median) time patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit A lower number of minutes is better Based on 164 patients 3, 29 238
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 26 patients 3, 29 282
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 5 Not Available
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) 1, 29 Not Available

Patient Safety

Measure Score vs. National
Pressure ulcer rate Based on 1,766 patients 29 0.26 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate among surgical inpatients with serious treatable complications Based on 58 patients 29 183.76 No Different Than the National Rate
Iatrogenic pneumothorax rate Based on 1,981 patients 29 0.64 Worse Than the National Rate
In-hospital fall-associated fracture rate Based on 1,915 patients 29 0.24 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma rate Based on 784 patients 29 2.62 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative acute kidney injury requiring dialysis rate Based on 302 patients 29 1.58 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative respiratory failure rate Based on 331 patients 29 9.15 No Different Than the National Rate
Perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis rate Based on 807 patients 29 3.13 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative sepsis rate Based on 277 patients 29 4.86 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative wound dehiscence rate Based on 149 patients 29 1.98 No Different Than the National Rate
Abdominopelvic accidental puncture or laceration rate Based on 389 patients 29 1.42 No Different Than the National Rate
CMS Medicare PSI 90: Patient safety and adverse events composite 29 0.93 No Different Than the National Value

Sepsis Care

Measure Score vs. National
Appropriate care for severe sepsis and septic shock Based on 68 patients 2, 3, 29 40
Septic Shock 3-Hour Bundle Based on 21 patients 2, 3, 29 19
Septic Shock 6-Hour Bundle 1, 2, 3, 29 Not Available

Stroke Care

Measure Score vs. National
Discharged on Antithrombotic Therapy Based on 83 patients 29 99
Anticoagulation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter 1, 29 Not Available
Antithrombotic Therapy by End of Hospital Day 2 Based on 64 patients 29 89

Venous Thromboembolism

Measure Score vs. National
Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Based on 1,496 patients 29 91
Intensive Care Unit Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Based on 542 patients 29 96

Patient Experience (HCAHPS Survey)

Based on 175 completed surveys. Response rate: 9%.

Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" communicated well

Response: 82% 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: 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: 87% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 3% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 10% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 80% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 5% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 15% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 80% 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: 16% 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: 92

Doctor communication - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 88% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 3% 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: 82% 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: 13% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 76% 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: 18% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 64% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 19% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 17% Score: Not Applicable

Communication about medicines - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 78

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: 74% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 11% 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: 54% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 27% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 19% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 15% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 85% Score: Not Applicable

Discharge information - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 83

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: 15% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 85% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 16% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 84% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 76% 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: 16% Score: Not Applicable

Cleanliness - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 88

Cleanliness - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 69% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 2% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 29% Score: Not Applicable

Quietness - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 89

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: 7% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 15% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 78% Score: Not Applicable

Overall hospital rating - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 91

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: 4% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would definitely recommend the hospital

Response: 78% 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 - Private
  • Rating 2/5
  • Emergency No
  • 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 DELL SETON MED CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TX

DELL SETON MED CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TX is a acute care hospitals located in Austin, Texas. The facility is voluntary non-profit - private owned. It has an overall quality rating of 2 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 175 surveys available for review.