INTEGRIS BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, INC

Acute Care Hospitals Oklahoma City, OK Emergency Services
3/5
Overall Rating
3/5
Hospital Type
Acute Care Hospitals
Ownership
Voluntary non-profit - Private
Emergency
Yes

Hospital Information

Facility NameINTEGRIS BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, INC
Address3300 NORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY
Oklahoma City, OK 73112
CountyOKLAHOMA
Hospital TypeAcute Care Hospitals
OwnershipVoluntary non-profit - Private
Emergency ServicesYes
Phone(405) 949-3011

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 2,910 patients 4.2 No Different Than the National Rate
Safe Use of Opioids - Concurrent Prescribing Based on 10,689 patients 13
Severe Sepsis 3-Hour Bundle Based on 132 patients 2 80
Severe Sepsis 6-Hour Bundle Based on 65 patients 2 83

Complications

Measure Score vs. National
Rate of complications for hip/knee replacement patients Based on 73 patients 3.1 No Different Than the National Rate

Healthcare-Associated Infections

Measure Score vs. National
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 0.112 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 0.457 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection: Number of Device Days 28559 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 33.244 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 8 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards) 0.241 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 0.065 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 0.393 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Number of Urinary Catheter Days 19474 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 28.206 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 5 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards) 0.177 Better than the National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Lower Confidence Limit 0.358 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Upper Confidence Limit 1.257 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Number of Procedures 527 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Predicted Cases 14.182 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Observed Cases 10 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery 0.705 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Lower Confidence Limit 0.669 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Upper Confidence Limit 4.045 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Number of Procedures 306 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Predicted Cases 2.740 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Observed Cases 5 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy 1.825 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Lower Confidence Limit 1.108 Worse than the National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Upper Confidence Limit 2.475 Worse than the National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Patient Days 165257 Worse than the National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Predicted Cases 14.206 Worse than the National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Observed Cases 24 Worse than the National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia 1.689 Worse than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Lower Confidence Limit 0.183 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Upper Confidence Limit 0.350 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Patient Days 149828 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Predicted Cases 144.356 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Observed Cases 37 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff) 0.256 Better than the National Benchmark

Immunization

Measure Score vs. National
Healthcare workers given influenza vaccination Based on 3,651 patients 92

Mortality

Measure Score vs. National
Death rate for heart attack patients Based on 234 patients 13.5 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for CABG surgery patients Based on 178 patients 3 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for COPD patients Based on 229 patients 10.1 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for heart failure patients Based on 557 patients 13.2 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for pneumonia patients Based on 714 patients 14.8 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for stroke patients Based on 548 patients 15 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 410 patients 146
Average (median) time patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit A lower number of minutes is better Based on 388 patients 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 Based on 18 patients 185
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 84,954 patients 3
Head CT results 1 Not Available
Endoscopy/polyp surveillance: appropriate follow-up interval for normal colonoscopy in average risk patients Based on 108 patients 100
Improvement in Patient's Visual Function within 90 Days Following Cataract Surgery 5 Not Available
ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) Based on 64 patients 58

Patient Safety

Measure Score vs. National
Pressure ulcer rate Based on 9,877 patients 0.23 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate among surgical inpatients with serious treatable complications Based on 272 patients 188.97 No Different Than the National Rate
Iatrogenic pneumothorax rate Based on 11,917 patients 0.19 No Different Than the National Rate
In-hospital fall-associated fracture rate Based on 12,739 patients 0.27 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma rate Based on 3,581 patients 1.79 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative acute kidney injury requiring dialysis rate Based on 1,571 patients 2.27 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative respiratory failure rate Based on 1,595 patients 11.28 No Different Than the National Rate
Perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis rate Based on 3,915 patients 2.49 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative sepsis rate Based on 1,573 patients 3.98 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative wound dehiscence rate Based on 954 patients 1.55 No Different Than the National Rate
Abdominopelvic accidental puncture or laceration rate Based on 3,084 patients 0.70 No Different Than the National Rate
CMS Medicare PSI 90: Patient safety and adverse events composite 0.84 No Different Than the National Value

Sepsis Care

Measure Score vs. National
Appropriate care for severe sepsis and septic shock Based on 132 patients 2 45
Septic Shock 3-Hour Bundle Based on 62 patients 2 56
Septic Shock 6-Hour Bundle Based on 31 patients 2 84

Stroke Care

Measure Score vs. National
Discharged on Antithrombotic Therapy Based on 546 patients 98
Anticoagulation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter 5 Not Available
Antithrombotic Therapy by End of Hospital Day 2 Based on 464 patients 86

Venous Thromboembolism

Measure Score vs. National
Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis 5 Not Available
Intensive Care Unit Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Based on 5,062 patients 95

Patient Experience (HCAHPS Survey)

Based on 1,727 completed surveys. Response rate: 17%.

Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" communicated well

Response: 74% 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: 21% 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: 82% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 4% 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: 5% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 23% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 69% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 7% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 24% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Always" communicated well

Response: 78% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 5% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Usually" communicated well

Response: 17% Score: Not Applicable

Doctor communication - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 91

Doctor communication - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 84% 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: 13% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 77% 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: 17% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 72% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 7% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 21% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 56% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 25% 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: 73

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: 70% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 12% 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: 42% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 37% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 21% 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: 84

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: 16% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 84% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 14% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 86% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 68% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 12% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 20% 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: 60% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 11% 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: 82

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: 9% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 23% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 68% Score: Not Applicable

Overall hospital rating - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 87

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: 6% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would definitely recommend the hospital

Response: 71% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would probably recommend the hospital

Response: 23% Score: Not Applicable

Recommend hospital - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 88

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 3/5
  • 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 INTEGRIS BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, INC

INTEGRIS BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, INC is a acute care hospitals located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The facility is voluntary non-profit - private owned and provides emergency services. It has an overall quality rating of 3 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 1,727 surveys available for review.