TRIOS HEALTH

Acute Care Hospitals Kennewick, WA Emergency Services
1/5
Overall Rating
1/5
Hospital Type
Acute Care Hospitals
Ownership
Government - Hospital District or Authority
Emergency
Yes

Hospital Information

Facility NameTRIOS HEALTH
Address3780 PLAZA WAY
Kennewick, WA 99338
CountyBENTON
Hospital TypeAcute Care Hospitals
OwnershipGovernment - Hospital District or Authority
Emergency ServicesYes
Phone(509) 586-6111

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 Based on 5,446 patients 12
Hospital Harm - Severe Hypoglycemia Based on 555 patients 0
Hospital Harm - Opioid Related Adverse Events Based on 2,316 patients 0
Hybrid Hospital-Wide All-Cause Risk Standardized Mortality Rate Based on 718 patients 5 No Different Than the National Rate
Safe Use of Opioids - Concurrent Prescribing Based on 563 patients 9
Severe Sepsis 3-Hour Bundle Based on 361 patients 79
Severe Sepsis 6-Hour Bundle Based on 205 patients 96

Complications

Measure Score vs. National
Rate of complications for hip/knee replacement patients Based on 25 patients 3.2 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 346 Not Available
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 0.283 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 0.019 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 1.884 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Number of Urinary Catheter Days 3329 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 2.618 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 1 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards) 0.382 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 21 Not Available
SSI - Colon Surgery: Predicted Cases 0.577 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 8 Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Predicted Cases 0.084 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 2.550 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Patient Days 23457 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Predicted Cases 1.175 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 0.208 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Upper Confidence Limit 1.259 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Patient Days 22258 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Predicted Cases 8.806 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Observed Cases 5 No Different than National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff) 0.568 No Different than National Benchmark

Immunization

Measure Score vs. National
Healthcare workers given influenza vaccination Based on 1,331 patients 67

Mortality

Measure Score vs. National
Death rate for heart attack patients Based on 160 patients 12 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for CABG surgery patients 5 Not Available Not Available
Death rate for COPD patients Based on 74 patients 10.9 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for heart failure patients Based on 198 patients 14.1 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for pneumonia patients Based on 241 patients 23.2 Worse Than the National Rate
Death rate for stroke patients Based on 76 patients 13.7 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 380 patients 172
Average (median) time patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit A lower number of minutes is better Based on 359 patients 170
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 17 patients 276
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 27,317 patients 5
Head CT results Based on 16 patients 44
Endoscopy/polyp surveillance: appropriate follow-up interval for normal colonoscopy in average risk patients Based on 64 patients 98
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 2,125 patients 0.63 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 2,707 patients 0.24 No Different Than the National Rate
In-hospital fall-associated fracture rate Based on 2,622 patients 0.25 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma rate Based on 492 patients 2.45 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative acute kidney injury requiring dialysis rate Based on 186 patients 1.61 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative respiratory failure rate Based on 190 patients 11.91 No Different Than the National Rate
Perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis rate Based on 516 patients 3.60 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative sepsis rate Based on 173 patients 4.73 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative wound dehiscence rate Based on 135 patients 1.71 No Different Than the National Rate
Abdominopelvic accidental puncture or laceration rate Based on 406 patients 0.97 No Different Than the National Rate
CMS Medicare PSI 90: Patient safety and adverse events composite 1.05 No Different Than the National Value

Sepsis Care

Measure Score vs. National
Appropriate care for severe sepsis and septic shock Based on 361 patients 60
Septic Shock 3-Hour Bundle Based on 122 patients 66
Septic Shock 6-Hour Bundle Based on 62 patients 74

Stroke Care

Measure Score vs. National
Discharged on Antithrombotic Therapy 5 Not Available
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 561 completed surveys. Response rate: 14%.

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: 6% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Usually" communicated well

Response: 20% Score: Not Applicable

Nurse communication - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 89

Nurse communication - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 83% 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: 13% 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: 6% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 22% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 68% 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: 25% 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: 82% 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: 13% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 72% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 9% 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: 68% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 9% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 23% 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: 21% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 20% 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: 70% 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: 20% 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: 32% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 20% 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: 85

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: 77% 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: 17% Score: Not Applicable

Cleanliness - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 90

Cleanliness - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 49% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 12% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 39% Score: Not Applicable

Quietness - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 78

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: 13% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 24% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 63% Score: Not Applicable

Overall hospital rating - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 85

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: 9% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would definitely recommend the hospital

Response: 64% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would probably recommend the hospital

Response: 27% Score: Not Applicable

Recommend hospital - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 84

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 - Hospital District or Authority
  • Rating 1/5
  • 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 TRIOS HEALTH

TRIOS HEALTH is a acute care hospitals located in Kennewick, Washington. The facility is government - hospital district or authority owned and provides emergency services. It has an overall quality rating of 1 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 561 surveys available for review.