UCSF MEDICAL CENTER

Acute Care Hospitals San Francisco, CA Emergency Services
5/5
Overall Rating
5/5
Hospital Type
Acute Care Hospitals
Ownership
Voluntary non-profit - Other
Emergency
Yes

Hospital Information

Facility NameUCSF MEDICAL CENTER
Address505 PARNASSUS AVE, BOX 0296
San Francisco, CA 94143
CountySAN FRANCISCO
Hospital TypeAcute Care Hospitals
OwnershipVoluntary non-profit - Other
Emergency ServicesYes
Phone(415) 353-2733

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 3,362 patients 2.9 Better Than the National Rate
Safe Use of Opioids - Concurrent Prescribing Based on 9,050 patients 16
Severe Sepsis 3-Hour Bundle Based on 79 patients 2 66
Severe Sepsis 6-Hour Bundle Based on 34 patients 2 79

Complications

Measure Score vs. National
Rate of complications for hip/knee replacement patients Based on 395 patients 4.3 No Different Than the National Rate

Healthcare-Associated Infections

Measure Score vs. National
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 0.394 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 0.774 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection: Number of Device Days 53447 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 60.699 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 34 Better than the National Benchmark
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards) 0.560 Better than the National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit 0.525 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit 1.041 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Number of Urinary Catheter Days 26681 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases 44.022 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases 33 No Different than National Benchmark
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards) 0.750 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Lower Confidence Limit 0.513 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Upper Confidence Limit 1.538 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Number of Procedures 536 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Predicted Cases 14.088 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery: Observed Cases 13 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Colon Surgery 0.923 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Lower Confidence Limit 0.234 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Upper Confidence Limit 2.508 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Number of Procedures 407 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Predicted Cases 3.256 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Observed Cases 3 No Different than National Benchmark
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy 0.921 No Different than National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Lower Confidence Limit 0.178 Better than the National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Upper Confidence Limit 0.669 Better than the National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Patient Days 281680 Better than the National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Predicted Cases 24.700 Better than the National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia: Observed Cases 9 Better than the National Benchmark
MRSA Bacteremia 0.364 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Lower Confidence Limit 0.392 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Upper Confidence Limit 0.648 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Patient Days 257472 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Predicted Cases 120.169 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Observed Cases 61 Better than the National Benchmark
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff) 0.508 Better than the National Benchmark

Immunization

Measure Score vs. National
Healthcare workers given influenza vaccination Based on 29,981 patients 79

Mortality

Measure Score vs. National
Death rate for heart attack patients Based on 129 patients 10.2 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for CABG surgery patients Based on 104 patients 2.1 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for COPD patients Based on 88 patients 7.5 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate for heart failure patients Based on 461 patients 6.7 Better Than the National Rate
Death rate for pneumonia patients Based on 547 patients 10.6 Better Than the National Rate
Death rate for stroke patients Based on 280 patients 11 Better 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 366 patients 282
Average (median) time patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit A lower number of minutes is better Based on 349 patients 276
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 1 Not Available
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 62,175 patients 4
Head CT results 1 Not Available
Endoscopy/polyp surveillance: appropriate follow-up interval for normal colonoscopy in average risk patients Based on 1,021 patients 99
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 15,431 patients 0.95 No Different Than the National Rate
Death rate among surgical inpatients with serious treatable complications Based on 452 patients 139.40 Better Than the National Rate
Iatrogenic pneumothorax rate Based on 15,965 patients 0.22 No Different Than the National Rate
In-hospital fall-associated fracture rate Based on 17,859 patients 0.20 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma rate Based on 6,516 patients 2.00 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative acute kidney injury requiring dialysis rate Based on 4,184 patients 0.85 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative respiratory failure rate Based on 3,989 patients 7.35 No Different Than the National Rate
Perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis rate Based on 7,590 patients 4.90 Worse Than the National Rate
Postoperative sepsis rate Based on 4,087 patients 5.00 No Different Than the National Rate
Postoperative wound dehiscence rate Based on 2,034 patients 1.95 No Different Than the National Rate
Abdominopelvic accidental puncture or laceration rate Based on 4,689 patients 1.24 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 79 patients 2 33
Septic Shock 3-Hour Bundle Based on 27 patients 2 33
Septic Shock 6-Hour Bundle 1, 2, 3 Not Available

Stroke Care

Measure Score vs. National
Discharged on Antithrombotic Therapy Based on 298 patients 99
Anticoagulation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter 5 Not Available
Antithrombotic Therapy by End of Hospital Day 2 Based on 262 patients 90

Venous Thromboembolism

Measure Score vs. National
Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis 5 Not Available
Intensive Care Unit Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Based on 4,035 patients 97

Patient Experience (HCAHPS Survey)

Based on 1,320 completed surveys. Response rate: 22%.

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: 3% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported that their nurses "Usually" communicated well

Response: 16% Score: Not Applicable

Nurse communication - linear mean score

Response: Not Applicable% Score: 93

Nurse communication - star rating

Response: Not Applicable% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 89% 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: 9% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 78% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 3% 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: 76% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 4% 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: 81% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 3% 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: 88% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 2% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 10% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 80% 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: 16% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 74% 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: 21% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 60% 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: 20% 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: 73% 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: 17% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 47% 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: 24% 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: 71% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 7% 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: 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: 54% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 15% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 31% 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: 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: 18% Score: Not Applicable

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

Response: 77% 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: 2% Score: Not Applicable

Patients who reported YES, they would definitely recommend the hospital

Response: 83% 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: 93

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 - Other
  • 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 UCSF MEDICAL CENTER

UCSF MEDICAL CENTER is a acute care hospitals located in San Francisco, California. The facility is voluntary non-profit - other 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 1,320 surveys available for review.