KAISER FOUNDATION HOSP SO SACRAMENTO

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

Hospital Information

Facility NameKAISER FOUNDATION HOSP SO SACRAMENTO
Address6600 BRUCEVILLE ROAD
Sacramento, CA 95823
CountySACRAMENTO
Hospital TypeAcute Care Hospitals
OwnershipVoluntary non-profit - Private
Emergency ServicesYes
Phone(916) 688-2000

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 Based on 24,625 patients 8
Hospital Harm - Severe Hypoglycemia Based on 5,042 patients 2
Hospital Harm - Opioid Related Adverse Events 5 Not Available
Hybrid Hospital-Wide All-Cause Risk Standardized Mortality Rate Based on 276 patients 4.4 No Different Than the National Rate
Safe Use of Opioids - Concurrent Prescribing Based on 4,122 patients 8
Severe Sepsis 3-Hour Bundle Based on 181 patients 2 87
Severe Sepsis 6-Hour Bundle Based on 115 patients 2 97

Complications

Measure Score vs. National
Rate of complications for hip/knee replacement patients 7 Not Available Not Available

Healthcare-Associated Infections

Measure Score vs. National
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 0.408 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 1.280 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection: Number of Device Days 15399 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 15.937 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 12 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards) 0.753 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 0.356 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 1.178 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Number of Urinary Catheter Days 13293 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 16.232 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 11 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards) 0.678 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Lower Confidence Limit 0.312 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Upper Confidence Limit 2.372 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Number of Procedures 152 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Predicted Cases 4.068 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Observed Cases 4 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery 0.983 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 21 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Predicted Cases 0.183 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Observed Cases 1 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy 13 Not Available Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia: Lower Confidence Limit 0.559 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Upper Confidence Limit 3.381 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Patient Days 76087 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Predicted Cases 3.278 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Observed Cases 5 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia 1.525 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Lower Confidence Limit 0.266 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Upper Confidence Limit 0.657 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Patient Days 71107 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Predicted Cases 44.354 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Observed Cases 19 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff) 0.428 Better than the National Benchmark

Immunization

Measure Score vs. National
Healthcare workers given influenza vaccination Based on 6,250 patients 66

Mortality

Measure Score vs. National
Death rate for heart attack patients Based on 46 patients 12.3 No Different Than the National Rate
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 Based on 51 patients 10.5 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for pneumonia patients Based on 53 patients 20.7 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for stroke patients Based on 53 patients 15.9 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 5 Not Available
Average (median) time patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit A lower number of minutes is better 5 Not Available
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 5 Not Available
Average (median) time transfer patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit. A lower number of minutes is better 5 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) 5 Not Available

Patient Safety

Measure Score vs. National
Pressure ulcer rate Based on 1,380 patients 0.32 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 1,612 patients 0.19 No Different Than the National Rate
In-hospital fall-associated fracture rate Based on 1,603 patients 0.26 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma rate Based on 247 patients 2.19 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative acute kidney injury requiring dialysis rate Based on 48 patients 1.65 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative respiratory failure rate Based on 32 patients 8.95 No Different Than the National Rate
Perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis rate Based on 259 patients 3.13 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative sepsis rate Based on 47 patients 5.02 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative wound dehiscence rate Based on 57 patients 1.74 No Different Than the National Rate
Abdominopelvic accidental puncture or laceration rate Based on 309 patients 1.00 No Different Than the National Rate
CMS Medicare PSI 90: Patient safety and adverse events composite 0.86 No Different Than the National Value

Sepsis Care

Measure Score vs. National
Appropriate care for severe sepsis and septic shock Based on 180 patients 2 73
Septic Shock 3-Hour Bundle Based on 58 patients 2 79
Septic Shock 6-Hour Bundle Based on 33 patients 2 82

Stroke Care

Measure Score vs. National
Discharged on Antithrombotic Therapy Based on 227 patients 96
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 487 completed surveys. Response rate: 19%.

Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" communicated well

Response: 76% 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: 19% 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: 74% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 6% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 20% 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: 85% 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: 12% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 76% 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: 19% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 75% 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: 18% 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: 20% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 21% 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: 74% 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: 18% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 44% 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: 25% 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: 10% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 90% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 12% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 88% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 71% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 9% 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: 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: 41% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 23% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 36% Score: Not Applicable

Quietness - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 71

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: 10% 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: 67% 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: 5% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would definitely recommend the hospital

Response: 70% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would probably recommend the hospital

Response: 25% 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 KAISER FOUNDATION HOSP SO SACRAMENTO

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSP SO SACRAMENTO is a acute care hospitals located in Sacramento, California. 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 487 surveys available for review.