METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL CENTER

Acute Care Hospitals New York, NY Emergency Services
3/5
Overall Rating
3/5
Hospital Type
Acute Care Hospitals
Ownership
Government - Local
Emergency
Yes

Hospital Information

Facility NameMETROPOLITAN HOSPITAL CENTER
Address1901 FIRST AVENUE
New York, NY 10029
CountyNEW YORK
Hospital TypeAcute Care Hospitals
OwnershipGovernment - Local
Emergency ServicesYes
Phone(212) 423-6262

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 86 patients 4 No Different Than the National Rate
Safe Use of Opioids - Concurrent Prescribing Based on 678 patients 2
Severe Sepsis 3-Hour Bundle Based on 77 patients 2 65
Severe Sepsis 6-Hour Bundle Based on 34 patients 2 74

Complications

Measure Score vs. National
Rate of complications for hip/knee replacement patients 1 Not Available Number of Cases Too Small

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 1.121 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection: Number of Device Days 2596 No Different than National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 2.673 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 8 N/A No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 1.824 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Number of Urinary Catheter Days 1294 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 1.642 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 0 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards) 0.000 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Lower Confidence Limit 13 Not Available Not Available
SSI - Colon Surgery: Upper Confidence Limit 13 Not Available Not Available
SSI - Colon Surgery: Number of Procedures 27 Not Available
SSI - Colon Surgery: Predicted Cases 0.701 Not Available
SSI - Colon Surgery: Observed Cases 0 Not Available
SSI - Colon Surgery 13 Not Available Not Available
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 39 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Predicted Cases 0.306 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Observed Cases 0 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy 13 Not Available Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia: Lower Confidence Limit 8 N/A No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Upper Confidence Limit 1.235 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Patient Days 31636 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Predicted Cases 2.426 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Observed Cases 0 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia 0.000 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Lower Confidence Limit 0.021 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Upper Confidence Limit 0.406 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Patient Days 27981 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Predicted Cases 16.273 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Observed Cases 2 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff) 0.123 Better than the National Benchmark

Immunization

Measure Score vs. National
Healthcare workers given influenza vaccination Based on 3,801 patients 36

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 28 patients 13.8 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 361 patients 171
Average (median) time patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit A lower number of minutes is better Based on 341 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 19 patients 317
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 5 Not Available
Head CT results 1 Not Available
Endoscopy/polyp surveillance: appropriate follow-up interval for normal colonoscopy in average risk patients Based on 88 patients 86
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 476 patients 0.44 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 604 patients 0.20 No Different Than the National Rate
In-hospital fall-associated fracture rate Based on 620 patients 0.27 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma rate Based on 80 patients 2.29 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative acute kidney injury requiring dialysis rate Based on 35 patients 1.67 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative respiratory failure rate Based on 39 patients 9.03 No Different Than the National Rate
Perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis rate Based on 86 patients 3.37 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative sepsis rate Based on 30 patients 5.13 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative wound dehiscence rate 1 Not Available Number of Cases Too Small
Abdominopelvic accidental puncture or laceration rate Based on 100 patients 1.32 No Different Than the National Rate
CMS Medicare PSI 90: Patient safety and adverse events composite 0.93 No Different Than the National Value

Sepsis Care

Measure Score vs. National
Appropriate care for severe sepsis and septic shock Based on 77 patients 2 39
Septic Shock 3-Hour Bundle Based on 19 patients 2 53
Septic Shock 6-Hour Bundle 1, 2 Not Available

Stroke Care

Measure Score vs. National
Discharged on Antithrombotic Therapy Based on 28 patients 96
Anticoagulation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter 5 Not Available
Antithrombotic Therapy by End of Hospital Day 2 Based on 33 patients 97

Venous Thromboembolism

Measure Score vs. National
Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis 5 Not Available
Intensive Care Unit Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Based on 576 patients 98

Patient Experience (HCAHPS Survey)

Based on 297 completed surveys. Response rate: 7%.

Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" communicated well

Response: 69% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 9% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Usually" communicated well

Response: 22% Score: Not Applicable

Nurse communication - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 86

Nurse communication - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 78% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 6% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 16% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 67% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 9% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 24% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 63% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 11% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 26% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Always" communicated well

Response: 74% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 8% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their doctors "Usually" communicated well

Response: 18% Score: Not Applicable

Doctor communication - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 88

Doctor communication - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 81% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 5% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 14% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 71% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 10% 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: 70% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 10% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 20% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 47% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 34% 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: 65

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: 62% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 21% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 17% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 32% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 47% 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: 21% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 79% Score: Not Applicable

Discharge information - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 78

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: 23% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 77% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 20% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 80% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 70% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 10% 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: 86

Cleanliness - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 50% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 16% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 34% Score: Not Applicable

Quietness - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 77

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: 11% 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: 66% Score: Not Applicable

Overall hospital rating - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 86

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: 7% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would definitely recommend the hospital

Response: 65% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would probably recommend the hospital

Response: 28% Score: Not Applicable

Recommend hospital - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 85

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 Government - Local
  • 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 METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL CENTER

METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL CENTER is a acute care hospitals located in New York, New York. The facility is government - local 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 297 surveys available for review.