REX HOSPITAL

Acute Care Hospitals Raleigh, NC Emergency Services
5/5
Overall Rating
5/5
Hospital Type
Acute Care Hospitals
Ownership
Government - State
Emergency
Yes

Hospital Information

Facility NameREX HOSPITAL
Address4420 LAKE BOONE TRAIL
Raleigh, NC 27607
CountyWAKE
Hospital TypeAcute Care Hospitals
OwnershipGovernment - State
Emergency ServicesYes
Phone(919) 784-3100

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 3,860 patients 3.5 Better Than the National Rate
Safe Use of Opioids - Concurrent Prescribing Based on 9,040 patients 16
Severe Sepsis 3-Hour Bundle Based on 167 patients 2 82
Severe Sepsis 6-Hour Bundle Based on 88 patients 2 93

Complications

Measure Score vs. National
Rate of complications for hip/knee replacement patients Based on 196 patients 2.5 No Different Than the National Rate

Healthcare-Associated Infections

Measure Score vs. National
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 0.062 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 0.470 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection: Number of Device Days 20145 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 20.525 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 4 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards) 0.195 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 0.495 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 1.224 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Number of Urinary Catheter Days 16956 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 23.785 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 19 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards) 0.799 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Lower Confidence Limit 0.377 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Upper Confidence Limit 1.086 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Number of Procedures 779 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Predicted Cases 21.117 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Observed Cases 14 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery 0.663 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Lower Confidence Limit 0.365 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Upper Confidence Limit 3.905 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Number of Procedures 255 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Predicted Cases 2.091 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Observed Cases 3 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy 1.435 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Lower Confidence Limit 0.184 Better than the National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Upper Confidence Limit 0.942 Better than the National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Patient Days 184222 Better than the National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Predicted Cases 13.244 Better than the National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Observed Cases 6 Better than the National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia 0.453 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Lower Confidence Limit 0.292 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Upper Confidence Limit 0.579 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Patient Days 170752 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Predicted Cases 79.081 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Observed Cases 33 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff) 0.417 Better than the National Benchmark

Immunization

Measure Score vs. National
Healthcare workers given influenza vaccination Based on 23,072 patients 97

Mortality

Measure Score vs. National
Death rate for heart attack patients Based on 453 patients 10.8 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for CABG surgery patients Based on 250 patients 1.5 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for COPD patients Based on 194 patients 8.7 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for heart failure patients Based on 1,116 patients 8.1 Better Than the National Rate
Death rate for pneumonia patients Based on 647 patients 13.2 Better Than the National Rate
Death rate for stroke patients Based on 392 patients 11.3 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 400 patients 197
Average (median) time patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit A lower number of minutes is better Based on 373 patients 191
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 21 patients 382
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 93,015 patients 1
Head CT results Based on 15 patients 67
Endoscopy/polyp surveillance: appropriate follow-up interval for normal colonoscopy in average risk patients Based on 146 patients 98
Improvement in Patient's Visual Function within 90 Days Following Cataract Surgery 5 Not Available
ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) Based on 27 patients 63

Patient Safety

Measure Score vs. National
Pressure ulcer rate Based on 12,134 patients 1.39 Worse Than the National Rate
Death rate among surgical inpatients with serious treatable complications Based on 202 patients 158.96 No Different Than the National Rate
Iatrogenic pneumothorax rate Based on 14,264 patients 0.26 No Different Than the National Rate
In-hospital fall-associated fracture rate Based on 15,123 patients 0.28 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma rate Based on 4,449 patients 2.44 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative acute kidney injury requiring dialysis rate Based on 2,227 patients 1.48 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative respiratory failure rate Based on 2,145 patients 10.28 No Different Than the National Rate
Perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis rate Based on 4,718 patients 3.62 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative sepsis rate Based on 2,121 patients 4.14 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative wound dehiscence rate Based on 1,045 patients 1.35 No Different Than the National Rate
Abdominopelvic accidental puncture or laceration rate Based on 2,944 patients 0.62 No Different Than the National Rate
CMS Medicare PSI 90: Patient safety and adverse events composite 1.19 No Different Than the National Value

Sepsis Care

Measure Score vs. National
Appropriate care for severe sepsis and septic shock Based on 167 patients 2 59
Septic Shock 3-Hour Bundle Based on 71 patients 2 73
Septic Shock 6-Hour Bundle Based on 43 patients 2 70

Stroke Care

Measure Score vs. National
Discharged on Antithrombotic Therapy Based on 438 patients 98
Anticoagulation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter Based on 99 patients 80
Antithrombotic Therapy by End of Hospital Day 2 Based on 368 patients 92

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 5,167 completed surveys. Response rate: 24%.

Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" communicated well

Response: 81% 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: 15% Score: Not Applicable

Nurse communication - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 92

Nurse communication - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 88% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 2% 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: 79% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 4% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 17% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 77% 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: 18% 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: 81% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 4% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 15% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 77% 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: 17% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 62% 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: 18% 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: 77% 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: 15% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 48% 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: 21% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 13% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 87% Score: Not Applicable

Discharge information - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 87

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: 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: 75% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 6% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 19% Score: Not Applicable

Cleanliness - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 89

Cleanliness - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 61% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 10% 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: 83

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: 5% 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: 80% 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: 3% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would definitely recommend the hospital

Response: 82% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would probably recommend the hospital

Response: 15% Score: Not Applicable

Recommend hospital - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 92

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 - State
  • Rating 5/5
  • 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 REX HOSPITAL

REX HOSPITAL is a acute care hospitals located in Raleigh, North Carolina. The facility is government - state owned and provides emergency services. It has an overall quality rating of 5 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 5,167 surveys available for review.