PROVIDENCE WILLAMETTE FALLS MEDICAL CENTER

Acute Care Hospitals Oregon City, OR Emergency Services
4/5
Overall Rating
4/5
Hospital Type
Acute Care Hospitals
Ownership
Voluntary non-profit - Private
Emergency
Yes

Hospital Information

Facility NamePROVIDENCE WILLAMETTE FALLS MEDICAL CENTER
Address1500 DIVISION STREET
Oregon City, OR 97045
CountyCLACKAMAS
Hospital TypeAcute Care Hospitals
OwnershipVoluntary non-profit - Private
Emergency ServicesYes
Phone(503) 656-1631

Quality Measures & Clinical Outcomes

Other Measures

Measure Score vs. National
Emergency department volume medium
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 400 patients 3.8 No Different Than the National Rate
Safe Use of Opioids - Concurrent Prescribing Based on 1,425 patients 12
Severe Sepsis 3-Hour Bundle Based on 126 patients 2 79
Severe Sepsis 6-Hour Bundle Based on 72 patients 2 88

Complications

Measure Score vs. National
Rate of complications for hip/knee replacement patients Based on 30 patients 3.9 No Different Than the National Rate

Healthcare-Associated Infections

Measure Score vs. National
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 13 Not Available Not Available
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 13 Not Available Not Available
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection: Number of Device Days 934 Not Available
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 0.733 Not Available
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 0 Not Available
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards) 13 Not Available Not Available
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 0.428 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 4.577 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Number of Urinary Catheter Days 2324 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 1.784 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 3 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards) 1.682 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 29 Not Available
SSI - Colon Surgery: Predicted Cases 0.784 Not Available
SSI - Colon Surgery: Observed Cases 1 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 9 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Predicted Cases 0.077 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Observed Cases 0 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy 13 Not Available Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia: Lower Confidence Limit 13 Not Available Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia: Upper Confidence Limit 13 Not Available Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia: Patient Days 20396 Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia: Predicted Cases 0.926 Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia: Observed Cases 2 Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia 13 Not Available Not Available
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Lower Confidence Limit 0.283 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Upper Confidence Limit 1.715 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Patient Days 20396 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Predicted Cases 6.464 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Observed Cases 5 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff) 0.774 No Different than National Benchmark

Immunization

Measure Score vs. National
Healthcare workers given influenza vaccination Based on 1,443 patients 53

Mortality

Measure Score vs. National
Death rate for heart attack patients Based on 39 patients 12.2 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 120 patients 8.2 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for pneumonia patients Based on 116 patients 17.3 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for stroke patients Based on 51 patients 12.2 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 413 patients 248
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 245
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 27 patients 450
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 31,247 patients 7
Head CT results 1 Not Available
Endoscopy/polyp surveillance: appropriate follow-up interval for normal colonoscopy in average risk patients Based on 34 patients 97
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 1,164 patients 0.40 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 1,515 patients 0.20 No Different Than the National Rate
In-hospital fall-associated fracture rate Based on 1,466 patients 0.26 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma rate Based on 202 patients 2.60 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative acute kidney injury requiring dialysis rate Based on 89 patients 1.66 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative respiratory failure rate Based on 95 patients 8.12 No Different Than the National Rate
Perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis rate Based on 216 patients 3.58 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative sepsis rate Based on 79 patients 6.03 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative wound dehiscence rate Based on 40 patients 1.73 No Different Than the National Rate
Abdominopelvic accidental puncture or laceration rate Based on 198 patients 1.02 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 126 patients 2 52
Septic Shock 3-Hour Bundle Based on 43 patients 2 56
Septic Shock 6-Hour Bundle Based on 21 patients 2 71

Stroke Care

Measure Score vs. National
Discharged on Antithrombotic Therapy Based on 96 patients 97
Anticoagulation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter 5 Not Available
Antithrombotic Therapy by End of Hospital Day 2 Based on 70 patients 97

Venous Thromboembolism

Measure Score vs. National
Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Based on 2,529 patients 84
Intensive Care Unit Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis 5 Not Available

Patient Experience (HCAHPS Survey)

Based on 514 completed surveys. Response rate: 20%.

Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" communicated well

Response: 79% 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: 17% Score: Not Applicable

Nurse communication - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 91

Nurse communication - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 85% 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: 12% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 76% 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: 19% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 75% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 5% 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: 80% 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: 16% 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: 86% 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: 11% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 79% 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: 16% 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: 5% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 19% 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: 20% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 24% Score: Not Applicable

Communication about medicines - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 76

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: 71% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 10% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 19% 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: 29% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 29% 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: 88

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: 85

Cleanliness - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 52% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 13% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 35% Score: Not Applicable

Quietness - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 79

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: 22% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 69% 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: 68% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would probably recommend the hospital

Response: 26% Score: Not Applicable

Recommend hospital - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 87

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 4/5
  • 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 PROVIDENCE WILLAMETTE FALLS MEDICAL CENTER

PROVIDENCE WILLAMETTE FALLS MEDICAL CENTER is a acute care hospitals located in Oregon City, Oregon. The facility is voluntary non-profit - private owned and provides emergency services. It has an overall quality rating of 4 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 514 surveys available for review.