Hospital Safety - Important for 50+'rs - we generally use them more
#1
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 20,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
10 Posts
Hospital Safety - Important for 50+'rs - we generally use them more
See the review of your hospital - keep it in mind for next bicycle accident or surgery, etc.
https://www.Hospitalsafetyscore.org
https://www.Hospitalsafetyscore.org
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Newport News, VA USA
Posts: 3,325
Bikes: Diamondback Edgewood LX; Giant Defy 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Fortunately, for me, the 3 hospitals I've used in my area all rate really, really well on that site.
#3
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Don't take it too seriously. Note, first, that it excludes critical access hospitals, surgical centres, cancer hospitals. Then look at the methodology they have used to come up with their score. There appear to be only 26 measures, which is a remarkably small number on which to assess something as complex as a major multi-specialty hospital. Only eleven of them are outcome measures - all important, no doubt, but some relating to relatively rare occurences (such as leaving an instrument in a patient post-op) in which very small numbers will make for wide variations in rankings. And I'd take a lot of convincing that some of the non-outcome measures - how much formal team-building training goes on, for example - can be shown to have a strong correlation with good patient outcomes.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Newport News, VA USA
Posts: 3,325
Bikes: Diamondback Edgewood LX; Giant Defy 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Don't take it too seriously. Note, first, that it excludes critical access hospitals, surgical centres, cancer hospitals. Then look at the methodology they have used to come up with their score. There appear to be only 26 measures, which is a remarkably small number on which to assess something as complex as a major multi-specialty hospital. Only eleven of them are outcome measures - all important, no doubt, but some relating to relatively rare occurences (such as leaving an instrument in a patient post-op) in which very small numbers will make for wide variations in rankings. And I'd take a lot of convincing that some of the non-outcome measures - how much formal team-building training goes on, for example - can be shown to have a strong correlation with good patient outcomes.
#5
Time for a change.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 6 miles inland from the coast of Sussex, in the South East of England
Posts: 19,913
Bikes: Dale MT2000. Bianchi FS920 Kona Explosif. Giant TCR C. Boreas Ignis. Pinarello Fp Uno.
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
4 Posts
Don't use Hospitals much---They are full of sick people.
To an extent we are tied to THE local hospital over here and like everything around- there are good and bad ones. Very few are bad but they do exist but they are trying to get hospitals to "Specialise" in certain aspects of medicine. So get pregnant Locally and the baby is on its way so you don't go the local hospital 6 miles from here--You go 30 miles to the one that specialises in it. Several Cabbies are now God Parents of the babies born in their Taxi's.
To an extent we are tied to THE local hospital over here and like everything around- there are good and bad ones. Very few are bad but they do exist but they are trying to get hospitals to "Specialise" in certain aspects of medicine. So get pregnant Locally and the baby is on its way so you don't go the local hospital 6 miles from here--You go 30 miles to the one that specialises in it. Several Cabbies are now God Parents of the babies born in their Taxi's.
__________________
How long was I in the army? Five foot seven.
Spike Milligan
How long was I in the army? Five foot seven.
Spike Milligan
#6
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Don't use Hospitals much---They are full of sick people.
To an extent we are tied to THE local hospital over here and like everything around- there are good and bad ones. Very few are bad but they do exist but they are trying to get hospitals to "Specialise" in certain aspects of medicine. So get pregnant Locally and the baby is on its way so you don't go the local hospital 6 miles from here--You go 30 miles to the one that specialises in it. Several Cabbies are now God Parents of the babies born in their Taxi's.
To an extent we are tied to THE local hospital over here and like everything around- there are good and bad ones. Very few are bad but they do exist but they are trying to get hospitals to "Specialise" in certain aspects of medicine. So get pregnant Locally and the baby is on its way so you don't go the local hospital 6 miles from here--You go 30 miles to the one that specialises in it. Several Cabbies are now God Parents of the babies born in their Taxi's.
In general, when the **** hits the fan, you are much better off spending an hour going to a full-on, comprehensive, multi-specialty centre than having immediate access to an inferior facility that wiill probably need to transfer you anyway and may give you less than optimal treatment until it does. Very few people die in ambulances on their way to hospital. Plenty used to die - some still do - because the hospital they are admitted to isn't able to provide what they need. People who fight to save their small local hospital are, in general, fighting to preserve an inferior and sometimes dangerous service.
#8
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
#9
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 20,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
10 Posts
Except it isn't info, really. It presents very superficial analyses as if they were facts, and encourages people to draw conclusions from them - conclusions that may or may not be justified, given that these are very simplistic distillations of a few datasets that give a very incomplete picture of what is going on and may actually be misleading.
With AARP behind them, these ratings WILL have a BIG impact on hospitals, superficial or not.
Who wants to go to a "C" hospital, no matter how fair or unfair or superficial the rating? Which hospital wants to be rated by a national, very influential, organization - AARP - as a B - F?
Last edited by DnvrFox; 05-17-13 at 10:21 AM.
#10
Old fart
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 24,786
Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3588 Post(s)
Liked 3,400 Times
in
1,934 Posts
#11
Senior Member
I took a look at my area hospitals. The ratings were inversely proportional to the severity of the patient population. The hospital that does all the transplants and other high risk stuff rated low. The hospitals that take care of acute care simple stuff rated high.
Thats not really surprising, is it?
The hospitals that rated lowish provide full service stuff like STEMI and stroke intervention. The ones that rate high, for the most part, didn't.
It's a stupid rating system that will do more harm than good in the long run.
Thats not really surprising, is it?
The hospitals that rated lowish provide full service stuff like STEMI and stroke intervention. The ones that rate high, for the most part, didn't.
It's a stupid rating system that will do more harm than good in the long run.
__________________
Momento mori, amor fati.
Momento mori, amor fati.
#12
Senior Member
Oh dear, we're not suggesting that another statistical analysis in the medical world could possibly be misleading and stupid, are we?
#13
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
A small percentage of people myself included fortunately have nothing to do with hospitals. I will be 75 this year, and have never been in a hospital or had any kind of operation. I have everything I was born with plus 32 teeth. Doctors love to take out things like gall bladders etc, but I managed to stay away from them. Hospitals, even good hospitals have alway been known to give many people all sorts of dieases.
#14
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Which hospital wants to be rated by a national, very influential, organization - AARP - as a B - F?
Assessing the safety and efficacy of hospitals is fantastically difficult, I've spent quite a lot of my life trying to do it, in one capacity or another. It's quite common for specialist units to show up very poorly in this sort of naive exercise, because they get the sickest patients - they are the place to which other doctors refer the patients that are too sick or too complicated. Yet those specialist units are exactly where you'd want to go if you suffered from the relevant conditions.
#15
Senior Member
And in an emergency when you aren't able to pick and choose which hospital you want to go to, you have to put your faith in whatever medical facilities, and more importantly, the expertise of the staff to operate those facilities, that are available.
Otherwise, you are probably going to die anyway.
Otherwise, you are probably going to die anyway.
#16
Older I get, faster I was
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: santa cruz
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I wish I could say my family or myself has never been in a hospital, but I can't. As a matter of fact, withouy hospitals my wife would have died years ago as a result of child birth, or if not then , from her MS she has struggled with for 25 years. Me, I might not be dead, I would just be crippled without knee, shoulder and back surgery. That does not take into account what the heck would have happened to me if my thyroid was allowed to continue into Thyroid Storm!
Yup, we have seen our share of the inside of hospitals and due to that I appreciate the work any group does to help make the experience safer. I don't know how accurate the second rating system is, the AARP one, but I can tell you the only hospital near us, Stanford Hospital was rated at the top and they saved my wife's life when her liver failed due to her MS where as the local hospital (not on the list as a top hospital)in our town did nothing and could not find the problem. The entire experience at Stanford was impressive!
I guess based on my little experience I'm buying into the AARP ratings.
Nice post Denver
Yup, we have seen our share of the inside of hospitals and due to that I appreciate the work any group does to help make the experience safer. I don't know how accurate the second rating system is, the AARP one, but I can tell you the only hospital near us, Stanford Hospital was rated at the top and they saved my wife's life when her liver failed due to her MS where as the local hospital (not on the list as a top hospital)in our town did nothing and could not find the problem. The entire experience at Stanford was impressive!
I guess based on my little experience I'm buying into the AARP ratings.
Nice post Denver
#17
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 20,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
10 Posts
I wish I could say my family or myself has never been in a hospital, but I can't. As a matter of fact, withouy hospitals my wife would have died years ago as a result of child birth, or if not then , from her MS she has struggled with for 25 years. Me, I might not be dead, I would just be crippled without knee, shoulder and back surgery. That does not take into account what the heck would have happened to me if my thyroid was allowed to continue into Thyroid Storm!
Yup, we have seen our share of the inside of hospitals and due to that I appreciate the work any group does to help make the experience safer. I don't know how accurate the second rating system is, the AARP one, but I can tell you the only hospital near us, Stanford Hospital was rated at the top and they saved my wife's life when her liver failed due to her MS where as the local hospital (not on the list as a top hospital)in our town did nothing and could not find the problem. The entire experience at Stanford was impressive!
I guess based on my little experience I'm buying into the AARP ratings.
Nice post Denver
Yup, we have seen our share of the inside of hospitals and due to that I appreciate the work any group does to help make the experience safer. I don't know how accurate the second rating system is, the AARP one, but I can tell you the only hospital near us, Stanford Hospital was rated at the top and they saved my wife's life when her liver failed due to her MS where as the local hospital (not on the list as a top hospital)in our town did nothing and could not find the problem. The entire experience at Stanford was impressive!
I guess based on my little experience I'm buying into the AARP ratings.
Nice post Denver
As to the ratings - I come into contact with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services a lot in the disability world. It is a powerful agency.
Here is a link to what Medicare is doing about patient safety. I don't know the relationship between the AARP study and what Medicare is doing about patient safety, but this article shows that there is $$$$ in patient safety. This looks remarkably like the AARP info, and it seems they are relating $$ to the type of criteria and results quoted originally in the AARP info above. The hospital associations are objecting to the measurements.
https://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stor...Hospitals.aspx
"Medicare has begun publishing patient safety ratings for thousands of hospitals as the first step toward paying less to institutions with high rates of surgical complications, infections, mishaps and potentially avoidable deaths.
The new data, available starting last week on Medicare's Hospital Compare website, evaluate hospitals on how often their patients suffer complicationssuch as a collapsed lung, a blood clot after surgery or an accidental cut or tear during treatment. The measures also include specific death rates for patients who had breathing problems after surgery, had an operation to repair a weakness in the abdominal aorta or had a treatable complication after an operation.
In addition, Hospital Compare is evaluating rates of some specific medical errors, such as giving patients the wrong type of blood, leaving surgical implements in patients' bodies during surgery and falls that occur during their stay.
Last edited by DnvrFox; 05-18-13 at 06:11 AM.
#18
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 20,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
10 Posts
A small percentage of people myself included fortunately have nothing to do with hospitals. I will be 75 this year, and have never been in a hospital or had any kind of operation. I have everything I was born with plus 32 teeth. Doctors love to take out things like gall bladders etc, but I managed to stay away from them. Hospitals, even good hospitals have alway been known to give many people all sorts of dieases.
I wish I could say the same. At one time I could legitimately state that we had been to every emergency room in the Denver area. And northern Chicago. And much of San Diego. When you have children with life-threaening and near death experiences and conditions you tend to go to hospitals and ER's despite their drawbacks (of which there are many). And, I have had several encounters myself, also my wife.
But, you seem to have inherited super-natural genes, so again, my congrats to you - perhaps, better stated, to your parents.
#19
Senior Member
Likely so, but do a Google on the topic and you can see MANY hospitals now claiming to be in the top 50, or attaining an A status. I would ponder that CMS (USA's Medicare and Medicaid funder and overseer) will be most interested in these results, and, politically, these results will require changes in those hospitals receiving less than an A.
With AARP behind them, these ratings WILL have a BIG impact on hospitals, superficial or not.
Who wants to go to a "C" hospital, no matter how fair or unfair or superficial the rating? Which hospital wants to be rated by a national, very influential, organization - AARP - as a B - F?
With AARP behind them, these ratings WILL have a BIG impact on hospitals, superficial or not.
Who wants to go to a "C" hospital, no matter how fair or unfair or superficial the rating? Which hospital wants to be rated by a national, very influential, organization - AARP - as a B - F?
__________________
Momento mori, amor fati.
Momento mori, amor fati.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,260
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
A small percentage of people myself included fortunately have nothing to do with hospitals. I will be 75 this year, and have never been in a hospital or had any kind of operation. I have everything I was born with plus 32 teeth. Doctors love to take out things like gall bladders etc, but I managed to stay away from them. Hospitals, even good hospitals have alway been known to give many people all sorts of dieases.
As a Hospital Courier I travel the halls and offices of every Health Care facility in the county handling railings, door handles, and packages all day long. Short of becoming infected during an invasive procedure good hygene and a strong awareness of the importance of good hygene is considered effective protection from the germs etc. of the sick folks in these facilities.
Congrats. on your run of good luck healthwise, let's hope for your sake that it continues.
#21
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
It's not exactly rocket science to work out that the Stanford University Medical Centre, one of the best-resourced and most eminent hospitals in the world, is likely to be superior to your local hospital when dealing with complex medical problems. That has absolutely no bearing on whether these ratings are meaningful. If you use them to inform your decisions in where to seek treatment, you're going to make a lot of poor judgements.
Patient safety is of course a very important issue. There are lots of things that can be done to improve it, and to minimise the many risks that are intrinsic to running a facility in which one is cutting people open, injecting them with highly toxic substances, placing them in close proximity to hazardous materials and dangerous pathogens, and so on and so forth. Very few of those things are claimed to be assessed as part of this system. Some are: for example, they claim to assess the hospitals risk management systems, though it is not clear how they do that and in my experience, such assessments can themselves vary widely in their thoroughness and accuracy.
But most of what is important with regard to quality of care is not included. They are doing virtually nothing to assess your probability of a good outcome in one facility rather than another. That is not surprising, it is extremely difficult to do and demands a very detailed analysis of the severity of the patient caseload. They have, therefore, merely chosen to measure what they can measure, whether or not it is very important. If you read the article explaining what they are doing, it concedes that the data they are using is limited.
This stuff is very dangerous and, in my view, against the public interest. If funding institutions start to buy into it, and hospitals are forced to respond, what they will do is divert resources into doing the things that will get them a higher rating, even though that might not be - probably will not be - what they should be investing in to make a real impact on the quality of patient care. They will need to tick the boxes, even when they know that they are the wrong boxes. Don't buy into this nonsense.
Patient safety is of course a very important issue. There are lots of things that can be done to improve it, and to minimise the many risks that are intrinsic to running a facility in which one is cutting people open, injecting them with highly toxic substances, placing them in close proximity to hazardous materials and dangerous pathogens, and so on and so forth. Very few of those things are claimed to be assessed as part of this system. Some are: for example, they claim to assess the hospitals risk management systems, though it is not clear how they do that and in my experience, such assessments can themselves vary widely in their thoroughness and accuracy.
But most of what is important with regard to quality of care is not included. They are doing virtually nothing to assess your probability of a good outcome in one facility rather than another. That is not surprising, it is extremely difficult to do and demands a very detailed analysis of the severity of the patient caseload. They have, therefore, merely chosen to measure what they can measure, whether or not it is very important. If you read the article explaining what they are doing, it concedes that the data they are using is limited.
This stuff is very dangerous and, in my view, against the public interest. If funding institutions start to buy into it, and hospitals are forced to respond, what they will do is divert resources into doing the things that will get them a higher rating, even though that might not be - probably will not be - what they should be investing in to make a real impact on the quality of patient care. They will need to tick the boxes, even when they know that they are the wrong boxes. Don't buy into this nonsense.
#22
rebmeM roineS
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Metro Indy, IN
Posts: 16,216
Bikes: Bacchetta Giro A20, RANS V-Rex, RANS Screamer
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 653 Post(s)
Liked 347 Times
in
226 Posts
My employer - and caregiver of choice if I am run over by a concrete truck - rated 'A'. That's good to see but not surprising. Part of what I do involves tracking surgical and other data that is sent to CMS. We use the data to see what/how we can improve the care that we deliver and CMS uses the data to verify that we are providing good care. Good care is cost-effective care.
__________________
Bacchetta Giro A20, RANS V-Rex, RANS Screamer
Bacchetta Giro A20, RANS V-Rex, RANS Screamer
#23
Semper Fi
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,942
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1172 Post(s)
Liked 358 Times
in
241 Posts
Nice thread Denver, as many surgeries as I have had, several were spur of the moment things, knowing the two hospital I use are rated very good. I already had formed that opinion myself from experience, but it is nice to know that they are being watched. One of our hospitals was a Malcom Baldridge Award (not sure if it is still awarded, Commerce Department budget cuts got it I seem to remember) winner a few years back, not a medical thing, but as a member of American Society for Quality and a Quality Engineer, I appreciate what that entails to have been awarded the honor. Personal experience means a lot to many of us, and we aren't all so perfect as to never need medical care, some of us are flawed and will admit it. Trust me, none of the 16 surgeries was elective or done for the joy of being laid open repeatedly.
Bill
Bill
__________________
Semper Fi, USMC, 1975-1977
I Can Do All Things Through Him, Who Gives Me Strength. Philippians 4:13
Semper Fi, USMC, 1975-1977
I Can Do All Things Through Him, Who Gives Me Strength. Philippians 4:13
#24
Senior Member
It's not exactly rocket science to work out that the Stanford University Medical Centre, one of the best-resourced and most eminent hospitals in the world, is likely to be superior to your local hospital when dealing with complex medical problems. That has absolutely no bearing on whether these ratings are meaningful. If you use them to inform your decisions in where to seek treatment, you're going to make a lot of poor judgements.
Patient safety is of course a very important issue. There are lots of things that can be done to improve it, and to minimise the many risks that are intrinsic to running a facility in which one is cutting people open, injecting them with highly toxic substances, placing them in close proximity to hazardous materials and dangerous pathogens, and so on and so forth. Very few of those things are claimed to be assessed as part of this system. Some are: for example, they claim to assess the hospitals risk management systems, though it is not clear how they do that and in my experience, such assessments can themselves vary widely in their thoroughness and accuracy.
But most of what is important with regard to quality of care is not included. They are doing virtually nothing to assess your probability of a good outcome in one facility rather than another. That is not surprising, it is extremely difficult to do and demands a very detailed analysis of the severity of the patient caseload. They have, therefore, merely chosen to measure what they can measure, whether or not it is very important. If you read the article explaining what they are doing, it concedes that the data they are using is limited.
This stuff is very dangerous and, in my view, against the public interest. If funding institutions start to buy into it, and hospitals are forced to respond, what they will do is divert resources into doing the things that will get them a higher rating, even though that might not be - probably will not be - what they should be investing in to make a real impact on the quality of patient care. They will need to tick the boxes, even when they know that they are the wrong boxes. Don't buy into this nonsense.
Patient safety is of course a very important issue. There are lots of things that can be done to improve it, and to minimise the many risks that are intrinsic to running a facility in which one is cutting people open, injecting them with highly toxic substances, placing them in close proximity to hazardous materials and dangerous pathogens, and so on and so forth. Very few of those things are claimed to be assessed as part of this system. Some are: for example, they claim to assess the hospitals risk management systems, though it is not clear how they do that and in my experience, such assessments can themselves vary widely in their thoroughness and accuracy.
But most of what is important with regard to quality of care is not included. They are doing virtually nothing to assess your probability of a good outcome in one facility rather than another. That is not surprising, it is extremely difficult to do and demands a very detailed analysis of the severity of the patient caseload. They have, therefore, merely chosen to measure what they can measure, whether or not it is very important. If you read the article explaining what they are doing, it concedes that the data they are using is limited.
This stuff is very dangerous and, in my view, against the public interest. If funding institutions start to buy into it, and hospitals are forced to respond, what they will do is divert resources into doing the things that will get them a higher rating, even though that might not be - probably will not be - what they should be investing in to make a real impact on the quality of patient care. They will need to tick the boxes, even when they know that they are the wrong boxes. Don't buy into this nonsense.
One thing that's easily confused: although closely related, quality care and safe care are not synonymous. As I think about the OP, what is being published is safety ratings, which are pretty straightforward, rather than quality assessment, which is much more difficult to quantify.
__________________
Momento mori, amor fati.
Momento mori, amor fati.
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: western Massachusetts (greater Springfield area)
Posts: 699
Bikes: Velosolex St. Tropez, LeMond Zurich (spine bike), Rotator swb recumbent
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 67 Times
in
32 Posts
In my area they gave A's to one place that I wouldn't send YOUR dog, and a couple of places that (appropriately) transfer their complicated patients as quickly as they can. They gave a C to one of the two major hospitals in the area and an A to another, and many of the physicians and surgeons there are on staff of both of those. I agree that safety and quality are difficult to quantify. However, as we move forward, putting systems in place so that your safety is not solely dependent on which doctor has admitted you requires redesigning how care takes place. Team building exercises are not irrelevant, because they indicate the culture at the institution (assuming that they are really taken to heart and not just done in a pro forma manner). Having said that, I agree that these ratings do not provide a reliable guide to where to go, but they may give some indication of which institutions are keeping up with current thinking in medical safety and, to a lesser extent, quality of care.