Joint Commission Annual Report
Joint Commission Annual Report
Joint Commission Annual Report
2012
™
Table of Contents
2 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
Letter from The Joint Commission President
It has been five years since The Joint Commission began publishing this annual report
on quality and safety, and I’m astounded at the improvement reflected in the data
contained within these pages. The first annual report, published in 2007, included data
from 2002-2005 and covered 15 measures of performance. This year’s report covers 45
measures and reflects from one to 10 years of improvement results. The data reflected
in this report are also the basis for The Joint Commission’s Top Performers on Key
Quality Measures™ program, which we introduced last year. The announcement of
Top Performers is highly anticipated by hospitals across the country, recognizing their
hard work in attaining excellence in accountability measure performance.
Three new accountability measure sets are included in the calculation for this year’s Top Performers program for the first
time: stroke, venous thromboembolism (VTE), and inpatient psychiatric services. With the inclusion of the last measure
set, 43 freestanding psychiatric hospitals or hospitals with inpatient psychiatric units are being recognized as Top
Performers for the first time. This year’s program recognizes 620 Joint Commission-accredited hospitals – over 50 percent
more hospitals than last year – a significant and heartening improvement in accountability measure performance. Even
more heartening is the distinction of 244 hospitals that have achieved Top Performer status for two consecutive years!
This year, 18 percent of America’s hospitals achieved the Top Performers distinction, with another 17 percent only one
measure short of the goal. By this time next year, we expect our Top Performers list to be even longer, as the program
continues to support and provide an incentive for organizations to continually improve.
Making the Top Performers list is no easy feat. Each recognized hospital met two 95 percent performance thresholds.
First, each hospital achieved performance of 95 percent or above on a single, composite score that includes all the
accountability measures for which it reports data to The Joint Commission, including measures that had fewer than
30 eligible cases or patients. Second, each hospital met or exceeded a 95 percent performance target for every
accountability measure for which it reports data, excluding any measures with fewer than 30 eligible cases or patients.
These hospitals are leading the way in quality improvement, as American hospitals as a whole continue to make strides.
While all hospitals achieving improvements deserve congratulations, those making the list starting on page 13 have
achieved an exemplary level of performance.
The program also provides an opportunity for recognized hospitals to celebrate their achievement. In addition to being
named in this report, Top Performers are highlighted at www.jointcommission.org and The Joint Commission’s Quality
Check website – www.qualitycheck.org. Each Top Performer will receive a certificate of recognition and communication
tools to aid in promoting its achievement. Since we started this program a year ago, the reputations of the hospitals on
our Top Performers list have been enhanced within their communities by local media stories about their achievement.
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 3
Letter from The Joint Commission President
(Cont’ d)
On January 1, 2012, The Joint Commission took yet another important step when it integrated performance
expectations on accountability measures into accreditation standards. Joint Commission-accredited hospitals are now
expected to meet a new performance improvement requirement (Standard PI.02.01.03, Element of Performance 1) that
establishes an 85 percent composite compliance target rate for performance on ORYX® accountability measures. The
new requirement is intended to help improve performance on ORYX core measures of patient care. (This standard does
not apply to the critical access hospital program.)
Better performance will help hospitals meet the valued-based purchasing requirements of federal and state governments
and private payers. Also, because the public expects transparency in hospital performance reporting, quality data have
been available on www.qualitycheck.org and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Hospital Compare website –
http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov – for some time.
As hospitals work diligently to improve quality and safety, I am energized by their ability to respond affirmatively to
challenges. When we raise the bar and provide the proper guidance and tools, hospitals have answered with excellent
results. Their capacity for continual improvement points toward a future in which quality and safety defects are
dramatically reduced and high reliability is expected and achieved. Day-to-day progress will slowly but surely transform
today’s health care system into one that achieves unprecedented performance outcomes for the benefit of the patients
we serve.
Sincerely,
4 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
Executive Summary
Reflecting an increase of 50 percent from last year, 620 hospitals have achieved the outstanding accountability measure
performance required to be included in the Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™ program. Improving America’s
Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 recognizes these hospitals for their exemplary
performance. The report also summarizes the performance of all Joint Commission-accredited hospitals on 45 accountability
measures (see Appendix 2) of evidence-based care processes closely linked to positive patient outcomes. (The 45 accountability
measures include two inpatient psychiatric services measures that are ratio measures, which are not included in the composite
results.)
Three accountability measure sets (heart attack care, heart failure care, and pneumonia care) have been followed for 10 years
(2002-2011) and five more sets have been followed from seven years to two years (surgical care, children’s asthma care,
inpatient psychiatric services, venous thromboembolism care, and stroke care). The magnitude of improvement on the
individual accountability measures has a median value of 7.1 percentage points from measure inception to 2011. Improvement
has ranged from a small fraction of a percentage point (for a measure that improved from 99.8 percent to 99.9 percent) to
+66.1 percentage points (for a measure with 10 years of reporting experience). All measures tracked over at least two years
showed improvement from the year of inception to 2011.
While the data show impressive gains in hospital quality performance, improvements can still be made. Some hospitals perform
better than others in treating particular conditions and in achieving patient satisfaction. Quality, safety, and patient satisfaction
results for specific hospitals can be found at www.qualitycheck.org.
More than 3,300 eligible Joint Commission accredited hospitals contributed data. See the Glossary for definitions.
Key Findings
1. The number of hospitals recognized by the Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™ program has increased over
50 percent from last year, with 620 hospitals earning this achievement. These hospitals represent about 18 percent of
all Joint Commission-accredited hospitals reporting core measure performance data.
Each of the 620 recognized hospitals met two 95 percent (95/95) performance thresholds on 2011 accountability measure
data.
First, each hospital achieved performance of 95 percent or above on a single, composite score that includes all the
accountability measures for which it reports data to The Joint Commission, including measures that had fewer than 30 eligible
cases or patients.
Second, each hospital met or exceeded 95 percent performance on every accountability measure for which it reports data to
The Joint Commission, excluding any measures with fewer than 30 eligible cases or patients.
A 95 percent score means a hospital provided an evidence-based practice 95 times out of 100 opportunities to provide the
practice. Each accountability measure represents an evidence-based practice – for example, giving aspirin at arrival for heart
attack patients, giving antibiotics one hour before surgery, and providing a home management plan for children with asthma.
Because hospitals want to achieve excellent reputations for delivering high quality care within their communities, The Joint
Commission expects the percentage of hospitals achieving these thresholds to increase as it publicly reports on the Top
Performers on Key Quality Measures program in the fall of each successive year.
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 5
Executive Summary (Cont’d)
2. Of the 620 Top Performers, 244 achieved the distinction for a second straight year.
This accomplishment means 244 hospitals repeated 95/95 performance after including data on new accountability measures
designated in 2011 into the measure sets they choose to report. The bar was raised; yet, the total number of hospitals meeting
the challenge increased by over 50 percent. In addition to the 620 hospitals (18 percent of total hospitals) achieving Top
Performer status, another 583 hospitals (17 percent) fell slightly short by missing 95 percent performance on only one measure.
These 583 hospitals are on track to potentially achieve Top Performer status next year. To help them improve core measure
performance and meet the Top Performer goal, The Joint Commission provides an online Core Measure Solution Exchange,
available through the Joint Commission Connect extranet. The Core Measure Solution Exchange is a user-friendly, interactive
forum that allows health care professionals from Joint Commission accredited organizations to freely exchange quality
improvement practices.
2010 2011
3. For the first time, freestanding psychiatric hospitals or hospitals with inpatient psychiatric units are being included
for recognition in the Top Performers program. Also, new this year is the addition of three accountability measure sets
in the calculation for this year’s Top Performers program – inpatient psychiatric services, stroke and venous
thromboembolism (VTE).
Psychiatric hospitals or hospitals with inpatient psychiatric units submitted data for the inpatient psychiatric services measure
set and 43 were recognized in the Top Performers program. The other two accountability measure sets included in this year’s
program for the first time are the stroke and venous thromboembolism (VTE) measure sets.
As more performance measures are developed and tested, they will be added in the calculation for the Top Performers program,
increasing the likelihood that more hospitals will be recognized for their work in performance measurement.
6 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
Executive Summary (Cont’d)
4. Hospital performance on accountability measures has improved significantly over time, greatly enhancing the quality
of care provided in America’s hospitals. Still, more improvement is needed and is expected to continue.
In 2011, hospitals achieved 96.6 percent “composite” accountability measure performance on 16.1 million opportunities to
perform care processes closely linked to positive patient outcomes. This is an improvement of 14.8 percentage points since
2002, when hospitals achieved 81.8 percent “composite” performance on 957,000 opportunities. A composite result sums
up the results of all individual accountability measures into a single percentage rating.
While hospitals achieved 90 percent or better performance on most individual measures, more improvement is needed. For
example, hospitals finished 2011 with only 60.2 percent of eligible heart attack patients receiving fibrinolytic therapy within
30 minutes of arrival.
5. Hospitals have significantly improved the quality of care provided to heart attack, pneumonia, surgical care,
children’s asthma care, inpatient psychiatric, venous thromboembolism, and stroke patients, according to composite
accountability measure results.
Composite accountability measures for heart attack and pneumonia care have been compiled since 2002, surgical care since
2005, children’s asthma care since 2008, inpatient psychiatric services since 2009, and venous thromboembolism and stroke
care since 2010. Note: There is no accountability composite for heart failure care since there is only one heart failure accounta-
bility measure. A composite must have at least two measures. However, the overall accountability composite results (see graph
8) include the one heart failure measure. For more information about accountability composite results versus composite results,
see “Note on Calculations and Methodology” on page 37.
• The 2011 heart attack care result is 98.5 percent, up Graph 1: Heart attack care accountability composite
from 88.6 percent in 2002 – an improvement of 9.9
100
percentage points. A 98.5 percent score means that hospitals
provided an evidence-based heart attack treatment 985 95
times for every 1,000 opportunities to do so.
Composite Rate
90
This composite includes:
• Aspirin at arrival 85
• Aspirin at discharge
• ACEI or ARB at discharge 80
• Beta-blocker at discharge
75
• Fibrinolytic therapy within 30 minutes
• PCI therapy within 90 minutes
70
• Statin prescribed at discharge
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 7
Executive Summary (Cont’d)
• The 2011 pneumonia care result is 96.2 percent, Graph 2: Pneumonia care accountability composite
up from 72.4 percent in 2002 – an improvement of 23.8
100
percentage points.
95
This composite includes:
• Pneumococcal vaccination
Composite Rate
90
• Blood cultures in ICU
• Blood cultures in ED 85
• Antibiotics to ICU patients
• Antibiotics to non-ICU patients 80
• Influenza vaccination
75
70
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
• The 2011 surgical care result is 97.6 percent, Graph 3: Surgical care accountability composite
up from 82.1 percent in 2005 – an improvement
100
of 15.5 percentage points.
95
This composite includes:
• Antibiotics within one hour before the first surgical cut
Composite Rate
90
• Appropriate prophylactic antibiotics
• Stopping antibiotics within 24 hours 85
• Cardiac patients with 9 a.m. postoperative blood glucose
• Patients with appropriate hair removal 80
8 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
Executive Summary (Cont’d)
• The 2011 children’s asthma care result is 94.7 Graph 4: Children’s asthma care accountability
composite
percent, up from 79.8 percent in 2008 – an
100
improvement of 14.9 percentage points.
95
This composite includes:
• Relievers for inpatient asthma
90
Composite Rate
• Systemic corticosteroids for inpatient asthma
• Home management plan of care 85
80
75
70
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
• The 2011 inpatient psychiatric services result is 87.3 Graph 5: Inpatient psychiatric services accountability
percent, up from 80.5 percent in 2009 – an composite
100
improvement of 6.8 percentage points.
95
The composite includes:
• Multiple antipsychotic medications* 90
Composite Rate
75
70
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
* For this measure, where a decrease in the rate is desired, the
accountability composite includes the number of the denominator The average number of hospitals reporting data was 319,
cases minus the number of the numerator cases. This converts the and ranged from 167 to 485.
rate so that it can be used in the composite with the majority of
accountability measures (those where an increase in the rate is
desired).
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 9
Executive Summary (Cont’d)
• The 2011 venous thromboembolism (VTE) care Graph 6: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) care
accountability composite
result is 89.9 percent, up from 82.7 in 2010 – an
100
improvement of 7.2 percentage points.
95
This composite includes:
• VTE medicine/treatment
90
Composite Rate
• VTE medicine/treatment in ICU
• VTE patients with overlap therapy 85
• VTE patients with UFH monitoring
• VTE warfarin discharge instructions 80
75
70
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
95
The composite includes:
• VTE medicine/treatment 90
Composite Rate
• Stroke education
70
• Assessed for rehabilitation
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
10 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
Executive Summary (Cont’d)
6. The percentage of hospitals achieving composite Graph 8: Percent of hospitals with overall accountability
composite greater than 90 percent
accountability measure performance greater than
100
90 percent in 2011 was 88.8 percent.
90
20
This composite includes all 2011 accountability
10
measures (see Appendix 2) except for two inpatient
0
psychiatric services measures – hours of seclusion and
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
hours of physical restraint. On these measures, a lower
score is preferred. The average number of hospitals reporting data was 3,272,
and ranged from 3,166 to 3,472.
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 11
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™ program
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™* program recognizes accredited hospitals that attain excellence in accountability
measure performance. The announcement of the Top Performers occurs in the fall of each year and coincides with the
publication of The Joint Commission’s “Improving America’s Hospitals” annual report.
There are 620 hospitals being recognized this year; they represent approximately 18 percent of Joint Commission-accredited
hospitals reporting core measure performance data. Each year, the percentage of recognized hospitals will vary. (Most Joint
Commission-accredited hospitals are required to report performance measure data to The Joint Commission while many
critical access hospitals voluntarily report these data.) Each year, hospitals may choose to report data on new or different
measure sets, which will influence whether they make the list of Top Performers; it usually takes some time to reach high
achievement on a new measure set.
Psychiatric hospitals or hospitals with inpatient psychiatric units are being included for recognition in the Top Performers
program for the first time. Of the 620 recognized hospitals, 43 are freestanding psychiatric hospitals or hospitals with inpatient
psychiatric units. These hospitals submitted data for the inpatient psychiatric services measure set – one of three new
accountability measure sets included in the calculation for this year’s Top Performers program. The other two accountability
measure sets included in this year’s program for the first time are the stroke and venous thromboembolism (VTE) measure sets.
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures program is designed to inspire better performance on accountability measures and
to serve as an incentive for all hospitals to improve and be the best they can be. The program also provides an opportunity for
recognized hospitals to celebrate their achievement of excellence in accountability measure performance.
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures program is consistent with pay-for-performance trends being enacted by federal
and state government and private payers. The reported data have been available on The Joint Commission’s Quality Check
website and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Hospital Compare website for some time. Today, the public expects
transparency in the reporting of performance at the hospitals where they receive care.
*Being named a Top Performer by The Joint Commission does not ensure that any specific patient in such a named hospital will have any particular good medical outcome.
Top Performer recognition is based on hospital performance on measures about activity in certain patient care areas, but not all the patient care areas provided by acute care
hospitals.
12 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™ for 2011
The checkmark (✓) indicates the measure set(s) for which the hospital is being recognized as a Top Performer. The list
is alphabetized by state and then by city. Many of these hospitals were also recognized as Top Performers last year.
To see last year’s Top Performers, visit www.jointcommission.org/accreditation/top-performers.aspx.
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 13
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™ for 2011
The checkmark (✓) indicates the measure set(s) for which the hospital is being recognized as a Top Performer. The list
is alphabetized by state and then by city. Many of these hospitals were also recognized as Top Performers last year.
To see last year’s Top Performers, visit www.jointcommission.org/accreditation/top-performers.aspx.
14 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™ for 2011
The checkmark (✓) indicates the measure set(s) for which the hospital is being recognized as a Top Performer. The list
is alphabetized by state and then by city. Many of these hospitals were also recognized as Top Performers last year.
To see last year’s Top Performers, visit www.jointcommission.org/accreditation/top-performers.aspx.
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 15
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™ for 2011
The checkmark (✓) indicates the measure set(s) for which the hospital is being recognized as a Top Performer. The list
is alphabetized by state and then by city. Many of these hospitals were also recognized as Top Performers last year.
To see last year’s Top Performers, visit www.jointcommission.org/accreditation/top-performers.aspx.
16 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™ for 2011
The checkmark (✓) indicates the measure set(s) for which the hospital is being recognized as a Top Performer. The list
is alphabetized by state and then by city. Many of these hospitals were also recognized as Top Performers last year.
To see last year’s Top Performers, visit www.jointcommission.org/accreditation/top-performers.aspx.
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 17
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™ for 2011
The checkmark (✓) indicates the measure set(s) for which the hospital is being recognized as a Top Performer. The list
is alphabetized by state and then by city. Many of these hospitals were also recognized as Top Performers last year.
To see last year’s Top Performers, visit www.jointcommission.org/accreditation/top-performers.aspx.
18 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™ for 2011
The checkmark (✓) indicates the measure set(s) for which the hospital is being recognized as a Top Performer. The list
is alphabetized by state and then by city. Many of these hospitals were also recognized as Top Performers last year.
To see last year’s Top Performers, visit www.jointcommission.org/accreditation/top-performers.aspx.
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 19
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™ for 2011
The checkmark (✓) indicates the measure set(s) for which the hospital is being recognized as a Top Performer. The list
is alphabetized by state and then by city. Many of these hospitals were also recognized as Top Performers last year.
To see last year’s Top Performers, visit www.jointcommission.org/accreditation/top-performers.aspx.
20 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™ for 2011
The checkmark (✓) indicates the measure set(s) for which the hospital is being recognized as a Top Performer. The list
is alphabetized by state and then by city. Many of these hospitals were also recognized as Top Performers last year.
To see last year’s Top Performers, visit www.jointcommission.org/accreditation/top-performers.aspx.
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 21
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™ for 2011
The checkmark (✓) indicates the measure set(s) for which the hospital is being recognized as a Top Performer. The list
is alphabetized by state and then by city. Many of these hospitals were also recognized as Top Performers last year.
To see last year’s Top Performers, visit www.jointcommission.org/accreditation/top-performers.aspx.
22 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™ for 2011
The checkmark (✓) indicates the measure set(s) for which the hospital is being recognized as a Top Performer. The list
is alphabetized by state and then by city. Many of these hospitals were also recognized as Top Performers last year.
To see last year’s Top Performers, visit www.jointcommission.org/accreditation/top-performers.aspx.
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 23
The Top Performers on Key Quality Measures™ for 2011
The checkmark (✓) indicates the measure set(s) for which the hospital is being recognized as a Top Performer. The list
is alphabetized by state and then by city. Many of these hospitals were also recognized as Top Performers last year.
To see last year’s Top Performers, visit www.jointcommission.org/accreditation/top-performers.aspx.
24 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
Accountability Measures Summary
Accountability measures reflect performance on evidence-based care processes closely linked to positive patient outcomes.
These measures are most suitable for use in programs that hold providers accountable for their performance to external
oversight entities and to the public.
Composite measures combine the results of related measures into a single percentage rating calculated by adding up the
number of times recommended evidence-based care was provided to patients (measure numerator) and dividing this sum by
the total number of opportunities to provide this care (measure denominator).
Composite for accountability measures: The 2011 overall accountability composite calculation is derived from 43 of the 45
accountability measures from seven measure sets (heart attack care, pneumonia care, surgical care, children’s asthma care,
inpatient psychiatric services, venous thromboembolism care, and stroke care) and the one heart failure accountability measure.
However, there is no accountability composite for heart failure care because a measure set composite must have at least two
measures. In addition, two measures from the inpatient psychiatric services set are not included in the composite because they
are reported as a ratio measure. Only proportion process measures are included in the composite. For more information, see
“Note on Calculations and Methodology” on page 37.
The overall 2011 composite calculation corresponds to the fourth quarter 2011 data on the ORYX Performance Measure
Report (PMR).
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 25
Accountability Measures Summary (Cont’d)
*The overall composite rate results for 2010 only include the 23 accountability measures
active as of January 1, 2010.
26 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
National Performance Summary
Results are determined by the number of times the hospital met the measure (such as giving aspirin at arrival for heart attack
patients) divided by the number of opportunities (eligible patients for the measure) the hospital had during the year. Results are
expressed as a percentage.
All improvements or decreases in performance are statistically significant. Many of the smaller percentage improvements
occurred within large patient populations, meaning that significantly more patients received a treatment. In some cases,
performance was already quite high and there was less room for improvement.
Composite measures combine the results of all individual process measures on a similar medical condition into a single
percentage rating calculated by adding up the number of times recommended evidence-based care was provided to patients and
dividing this sum by the total number of opportunities to provide this care.
Composite for all measures: The composite for all measures calculation is derived from the accountability measures for each
measure set. These composite results have historically been provided in previous annual reports, allowing them to be tracked
from year-to-year.
Heart attack care composite 95.7% 96.8% 97.7% 98.4% 98.5% 9.9%
Fibrinolytic therapy within 30 minutes 51.4% 52.4% 55.2% 60.5% 60.2% 21.5%
PCI therapy within 90 minutes 72.3% 81.6% 87.4% 91.2% 93.7% 25.4%
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 27
National Performance Summary (Cont’d)
28 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
National Performance Summary (Cont’d)
Table 6: Surgical care measure results
The overall measure and rates are indicated in bold; the stratified measures (by specific surgical procedures) are indicated in
regular type. The first three measures listed (antibiotics within one hour before the first surgical cut, appropriate prophylactic
antibiotics, and stopping antibiotics within 24 hours) report rates on seven specific surgical procedures, as well as the overall
measure rate.
Antibiotics within one hour before the first surgical cut 89.5% 93.5% 96.2% 97.4% 98.2% 16.4%
For cardiac surgery (other than CABG) 89.0% 93.7% 96.6% 97.6% 98.4% 14.6%
For hip joint replacement surgery 89.4% 93.4% 96.3% 97.5% 98.2% 16.9%
For knee joint replacement surgery 92.5% 95.3% 97.2% 98.0% 98.6% 13.5%
For cardiac surgery (other than CABG) 96.2% 99.1% 99.7% 99.8% 99.8% 3.6%
For hip joint replacement surgery 98.0% 98.7% 99.2% 99.5% 99.6% 1.6%
For knee joint replacement surgery 98.2% 98.8% 99.3% 99.5% 99.7% 1.5%
Stopping antibiotics within 24 hours 85.6% 90.5% 93.5% 95.7% 97.0% 23.5%
For cardiac surgery (other than CABG) 89.7% 92.6% 94.8% 96.5% 97.6% 34.9%
For hip joint replacement surgery 84.0% 89.8% 93.6% 95.9% 97.2% 28.0%
For knee joint replacement surgery 85.4% 91.3% 94.7% 96.7% 97.7% 28.2%
Cardiac patients with 9 a.m. postoperative blood glucose N/A 89.9% 92.7% 94.1% 95.3% 5.4%
Patients with appropriate hair removal N/A 97.4% 99.2% 99.7% 99.8% 2.4%
Beta-blocker patients who received beta-blocker perioperatively N/A 92.0% 91.5% 94.4% 96.4% 4.3%
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 29
National Performance Summary (Cont’d)
30 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
National Performance Summary (Cont’d)
* For this measure, where a decrease in the rate is desired, the accountability composite includes the number of the denominator cases
minus the number of the numerator cases. This converts the rate so that it can be used in the composite with the majority of
accountability measures (those where an increase in the rate is desired).
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 31
National Performance Summary (Cont’d)
Table 9: Inpatient psychiatric services ratio measure results
The following table includes a different kind of measure type – a “ratio measure.” A ratio tells how one number is related to
another. For example, one can count a group of people and then refer to the ratio of men to women. This table contains two
ratio measures: physical restraint hours per 1,000 patient hours and seclusion hours per 1,000 patient hours. In addition, these
two measures are stratified by age groups 1-12 years, 13-17 years, 18-64 years, and age 65 and above. Lower ratios reflect better
performance.
For the overall measures (in bold), the number of hospitals reporting these data ranged from 476-481. For the stratified
measures (by specific age ranges of patients in regular type), the number of hospitals reporting these data ranged from 231-453.
2009 2010
Median Maximum Percent of Median Maximum Percent of
Performance measure hospitals hospitals
with 0 hours with 0 hours
Inpatient psychiatric services – ratio measures
Physical restraint (minutes per 1,000 patient hours)* 0.11 10.27 8.6% 0.09 5.29 5.8%
For age 1-12 years 0.14 7.02 13.2% 0.18 5.19 8.2%
For age 13-17 years 0.16 7.08 9.3% 0.14 3.30 5.9%
For age 18-64 years 0.07 10.27 10.6% 0.06 3.85 7.6%
For age 65 and above 0.00 22.93 51.0% 0.00 23.14 49.3%
Seclusion (minutes per 1,000 patient hours)* 0.07 2.87 16.7% 0.06 10.06 16.8%
For age 1-12 years 0.21 6.50 17.9% 0.18 3.98 16.7%
For age 13-17 years 0.07 8.29 24.2% 0.08 7.65 20.3%
For age 18-64 years 0.04 2.26 22.6% 0.04 10.83 22.1%
For age 65 and above 0.00 3.23 73.2% 0.00 9.75 76.0%
2011
Median Maximum Percent of
Performance measure hospitals
with 0 hours
Inpatient psychiatric services – ratio measures
Physical restraint (minutes per 1,000 patient hours)* 0.09 4.46 7.4%
For age 1-12 years 0.17 5.72 8.4%
For age 13-17 years 0.12 16.58 7.5%
For age 18-64 years 0.06 4.84 9.6%
For age 65 and above 0.00 8.50 44.8%
Seclusion (minutes per 1,000 patient hours)* 0.06 9.55 16.8%
For age 1-12 years 0.22 5.97 22.1%
For age 13-17 years 0.08 4.43 22.5%
For age 18-64 years 0.04 9.72 20.3%
For age 65 and above 0.00 3.45 71.5%
* A lower ratio is preferred for this measure; therefore, it is not included in the composite results.
32 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
National Performance Summary (Cont’d)
Table 10: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) care measure results
Performance measure 2010 2011 Improvement since inception
(percentage points)
* This measure is not included in the composite. Only proportion process measures are included in the
composite.
■ Test measure
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 33
National Performance Summary (Cont’d)
Table 13: Percentage of hospitals achieving 90 percent or greater performance
The following table shows the percentage of hospitals achieving rates of 90 percent or greater on a measure. The last column
is reported as percentage points – the difference on a percentage scale between two rates, in this case 2010 performance
versus 2011 performance.
VTE patients with overlap therapy (VTE) N/A 28.6 90.5 61.9
Antibiotics to ICU patients (Pneumonia) 11.7 25.9 71.2 45.3
VTE medicine/treatment in ICU (VTE) N/A 59.4 92.1 32.7
VTE medicine/treatment (Stroke) N/A 45.3 71.2 25.9
VTE medicine/treatment (VTE) N/A 32.3 58.0 25.7
Incidence of potentially preventable VTE (VTE)* N/A 40.0 60.0 20.0
Receiving VTE medicine/treatment (Surgical Care) 75.8 76.1 93.7 17.5
Urinary catheter removed (Surgical Care) N/A 62.8 78.3 15.6
PCI therapy within 90 minutes (Heart Attack) 53.4 69.5 81.5 12.1
Stroke education (Stroke) N/A 48.1 60.0 11.9
Prescribing VTE medicine/treatment (Surgical Care) 65.2 83.5 95.2 11.7
Influenza vaccination (Pneumonia) 57.3 73.8 84.3 10.5
Beta-blocker patients who received beta-blocker perioperatively (Surgical Care) 67.0 82.0 91.3 9.3
Home management plan of care (Children’s Asthma) 14.9 27.8 37.1 9.3
VTE warfarin discharge instructions (VTE) N/A 21.1 30.0 8.9
VTE patients with UFH monitoring (VTE) N/A 81.8 90.0 8.2
Pneumococcal vaccination (Pneumonia) 75.1 84.2 90.6 6.4
Cardiac patients with 9 a.m. postoperative blood glucose (Surgical Care) 74.7 84.0 90.0 6.1
Stopping antibiotics within 24 hours (Surgical Care) 78.6 89.5 95.2 5.7
ACEI or ARB at discharge (Heart Failure) 81.1 86.8 92.0 5.2
Continuing care plan created (Inpatient Psychiatric) 62.7 73.1 77.7 4.6
Discharged on statin medication (Stroke) N/A 74.0 78.4 4.4
Assessed for rehabilitation (Stroke) N/A 88.0 92.1 4.1
Antibiotics to non-ICU patients (Pneumonia) 86.0 89.5 93.3 3.8
ACEI or ARB at discharge (Heart Attack) 88.0 93.9 96.8 2.9
Blood cultures in ICU (Pneumonia) 90.8 94.6 97.1 2.5
Antithrombotic therapy by end of hospital day two (Stroke) N/A 96.6 98.6 2.0
Antibiotics within one hour before the first surgical cut (Surgical Care) 90.8 95.7 97.6 1.9
Continuing care plan transmitted (Inpatient Psychiatric) 33.7 47.7 49.6 1.8
Admission screening (Inpatient Psychiatric) 64.2 76.9 78.5 1.6
Appropriate prophylactic antibiotics (Surgical Care) 96.7 97.1 98.3 1.2
Aspirin at discharge (Heart Attack) 96.6 97.7 98.8 1.1
Beta-blocker at discharge (Heart Attack) 96.8 97.9 98.8 0.9
Aspirin at arrival (Heart Attack) 98.4 98.8 99.5 0.7
Anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation/flutter (Stroke) N/A 83.3 84.0 0.7
Patients with appropriate hair removal (Surgical Care) 98.3 99.5 99.7 0.2
Relievers for inpatient asthma (Children’s Asthma) 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
Systemic corticosteroids for inpatient asthma (Children’s Asthma) 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0
Discharged on antithrombotic therapy (Stroke) N/A 99.1 98.6 -0.6
Multiple antipsychotic medications (Inpatient Psychiatric)* 48.0 53.0 52.3 -0.7
Justification for multiple antipsychotic medications (Inpatient Psychiatric) 1.2 12.2 9.8 -2.4
Statin prescribed at discharge (Heart Attack) N/A N/A 94.4 N/A
Elective delivery (Perinatal)* N/A N/A 52.6 N/A
Antenatal steroids (Perinatal) N/A N/A 33.3 N/A
Exclusive breast milk feeding (Perinatal) N/A N/A 3.0 N/A
* For this measure, a decrease in the rate is desired, so the percentage represented is the percent of hospitals with percentage of
10 percent or less.
■ Test measure
34 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
Understanding the Quality of Care Measures
Why they were created, what they report and why the results are
important
The Joint Commission has been involved in performance measurement for
25 years, viewing it as a critical way to extend the reach and sophistication of
the accreditation process. The Joint Commission’s 1990 publication, The
Primer on Clinical Indicator Development and Application, created a readily
adaptable template for performance measure development that is still in use
today and established The Joint Commission as a leader in this arena.
Criteria for accountability process
measures
The Joint Commission continues to be a leader in performance measurement.
Research: Strong scientific evidence
The data displayed on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) demonstrates that performing the
Hospital Compare website reflects measures that The Joint Commission and evidence-based care process improves
CMS have in common. Of that data, 96 percent comes from The Joint health outcomes (either directly or by
Commission via its well-established performance measure data network. reducing risk of adverse outcomes).
Today, this network comprises approximately 39 measurement systems,
all under contract to The Joint Commission, and is the source of all Proximity: Performing the care process
quality-related data on The Joint Commission’s Quality Check© website is closely connected to the patient
outcome; there are relatively few clinical
(www.qualitycheck.org).
processes that occur after the one that is
measured and before the improved
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on outcome occurs.
Quality and Safety presents the overall performance of Joint Commission-
accredited hospitals on quality of care accountability measures relating to Accuracy: The measure accurately
heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia, surgery, children’s asthma, inpatient assesses whether or not the care process
psychiatric services, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and stroke. These has actually been provided. That is, the
measures were chosen because they provide concrete data about the best kinds measure should be capable of indicating
of treatments or practices for common conditions for which Americans enter whether the process has been delivered
with sufficient effectiveness to make
the hospital and seek care.
improved outcomes likely.
The results are important because they show that hospitals have improved. Adverse Effects: Implementing the
The results identify opportunities for further improvement, and support measure has little or no chance of
continual measurement and reporting. Quality improvement in hospitals inducing unintended adverse
contributes to saved lives, better health and quality of life for many patients, consequences.
and lower health care costs.
Each accountability measure meets four criteria (see sidebar) that evaluate
whether or not evidence-based care processes associated with the measures
lead to positive patient outcomes. As new measures are introduced, they are
evaluated against the criteria.
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 35
Understanding the Quality of Care Measures (Cont’d)
For more information about accountability measures, see the New England Journal of Medicine article “Accountability Measures
– Using Measurement to Promote Quality Improvement,” for which Mark R. Chassin, M.D., F.A.C.P., M.P.P, M.P.H., president
of The Joint Commission, was the lead author.
Compliance with the element of performance, which has been identified as a direct impact requirement, is based on
performance on a single composite measure rate for all reported accountability measures. The target rate is based on research of
past ORYX performance data that shows increasing levels of compliance with accountability measures. In 2011, 97 percent of
hospitals met an 80 percent compliance rate, 94 percent met an 85 percent rate, and 89 percent met a 90 percent target. An
organization that is not in compliance with the target rate at the time of the triennial survey would receive a Requirement for
Improvement (RFI) in its accreditation report.
It’s important to note that where a patient receives care makes a difference. Not all hospitals deliver the same level of quality;
some hospitals perform better than others in treating particular conditions and in achieving patient satisfaction. This variability
has been known within the hospital industry for a long time. Quality, safety and patient satisfaction results for specific hospitals
can be found at Quality Check™ (www.qualitycheck.org). Designation as an accountability measure is included in the
information on Quality Check™.
36 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
Understanding the Quality of Care Measures (Cont’d)
Related quality reporting efforts of other organizations
The CMS Hospital Compare website (www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov) reports quality information from U.S. hospitals,
including treatments relating to heart attack, heart failure, pneumonia, surgical care and childhood asthma. Hospitals
voluntarily submit these data abstracted from their medical records about the treatments that their patients receive, including
patients with Medicare and those who do not have Medicare. Consumers can use Hospital Compare to compare care of local
hospitals to state and national averages. Unlike Quality Check, Hospital Compare includes data from organizations accredited
by CMS-recognized accrediting organizations other than The Joint Commission; some unaccredited organizations; and most
Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. It does not currently include Department of Defense and Indian Health
Service hospitals.
A composite measure is calculated by adding or "rolling up" the number of times recommended care was provided over all the
process measures in the given measure set and dividing this sum by the total number of opportunities for providing this
recommended care, determined by summing up all of the process measure populations for this same set of measures. The
composite measure shows the percentage of the time that recommended care was provided.
For example, if a heart attack patient receives each treatment included in the heart attack measure set, that’s a total of seven
treatments in seven opportunities. If 60 patients receive all seven treatments, that’s 420 treatments in 420 opportunities - 100
percent composite performance. However, if some of the 60 patients don’t receive all seven treatments (e.g., the total number
of opportunities for treatments is 410), and the treatments given to the 60 patients add to a total of 378, the heart attack
composite score is 92 percent.
Composite performance measures are useful in integrating performance measure information in an easily understood format
that gives a summary assessment of performance for a given area of care in a single rate. The composite measures in this report
are based on combining all of the process rate-based measures in the measure set. For a performance measure, each patient
identified as falling in the measure population can be considered an opportunity to provide recommended care.
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 37
Understanding the Quality of Care Measures (Cont’d)
Inclusions and exclusions
This report only includes data about patients considered "eligible" for one of the evidence-based treatments or measures. It’s
important to understand that not every patient gets – or should get – a treatment. Often, patients have health conditions or
factors that influence the effectiveness of treatments, or whether or not a provider orders a particular treatment. Also, a patient
may choose to refuse treatment or not follow the instructions of his or her care plan.
38 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
Glossary
Accountability process measure. An accountability process measure is a quality measure that meets four criteria designed to
identify measures that produce the greatest positive impact on patient outcomes when hospitals demonstrate improvement.
The four criteria are: research, proximity, accuracy and adverse effects (see page 35 for an explanation of the criteria).
ACEI (ACE inhibitors). ACE stands for "angiotensin converting enzyme." ACE inhibitors are medicines that are used to treat
heart failure, high blood pressure, and patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction following a heart attack. These
medicines block an enzyme in the body that is responsible for causing the blood vessels to narrow. If the blood vessels are
relaxed, blood pressure is lowered and more oxygen-rich blood can reach the heart. ACE inhibitors also lower the amount of
salt and water in the body, which helps to lower blood pressure.
Admission screening. Evaluating a patient for violence risk, substance use, psychological trauma history and patient strengths
within the first three days of admission to an inpatient psychiatric facility.
Antenatal steroids. Medication given to a mother in premature labor before delivery to promote lung development in the
baby.
Antibiotic timing. The length of time from arrival at the hospital until antibiotics are given. Antibiotics are generally given as
soon as possible to pneumonia patients to speed their recovery.
Antithrombotic therapy. Pharmacologic agents (oral or parenteral) that prevent or interfere with the formation of a blood
clot.
ARB. ARB stands for "angiotensin receptor blocker." An ARB is a medicine taken by mouth that reduces blood pressure and
strengthens the heart beat. ARBs are useful in the treatment of cardiac diseases such as heart attack and heart failure.
Beta-blocker. This type of medicine blocks the action of certain hormones on the heart. By blocking these hormones,
beta-blockers help to reduce the heart rate and blood pressure, thereby reducing the amount of oxygen needed by the heart.
Blood cultures. Blood tests that look for bacteria in the blood. These tests are given to pneumonia patients before antibiotics
are administered.
CABG. CABG stands for coronary artery bypass graft surgery – an operation in which a section of vein or artery is used to
bypass a blockage in a coronary artery, allowing enough blood to flow to deliver oxygen and nutrients to the heart muscles.
CABG is performed to prevent damage from a myocardial infarction (heart attack) or to relieve angina.
Cesarean section. A surgical procedure in which an abdominal incision is made to deliver the infant.
Composite measure. A measure that combines the results of two or more process measures into a single rating. A composite is
a summary of a related set of measures, which could be a condition specific set, all accountability measures, or accountability
and non-accountability measures. However, accountability composites are restricted to accountability measures;
non-accountability measures are excluded.
Elective delivery. A delivery occurring between 37 and 39 weeks of gestation, without a medical reason.
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 39
Glossary (Cont’d)
Exclusive breast milk feeding. An infant receives only breast milk during the hospital stay, with no additional food or drink,
including water.
Fibrinolytic therapy. Medication that dissolves blood clots. Breaking up blood clots increases blood flow to the heart. If blood
flow is returned to the heart muscle quickly during a heart attack, the risk of death is decreased.
Hair removal, appropriate. Removing hair with clippers or depilatory is considered appropriate. Shaving is considered
inappropriate.
Health care-associated infections in newborns. An infection acquired during a newborn’s stay in a hospital.
Heart failure. A condition in which the heart loses its ability to efficiently pump blood throughout the body.
Inpatient psychiatric services. Inpatient psychiatric services include care provided to a patient for a mental disorder while
hospitalized in a psychiatric unit of an acute care hospital or a free-standing psychiatric hospital. Services rendered to
outpatients or “day treatment” patients are not considered inpatient psychiatric services.
LVS assessment. An in-depth evaluation of heart muscle function that helps determine the correct treatment for heart failure.
LVS stands for “left ventricular systolic.” An LVS assessment evaluates how well the left ventricle – the heart’s main pumping
chamber – is functioning. Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction results when this heart chamber is not pumping all the blood
out before it refills for the next heart beat. This results in high pressure within the heart and can produce heart failure.
Multiple antipsychotic medications. Antipsychotic medications are drugs prescribed to treat mental disorders; if two or more
medications are routinely administered or prescribed, it is considered multiple medications.
Outcomes measure. A measure that focuses on the results of the performance or nonperformance of a process. (See process
measure.)
Overlap therapy. Administration of parenteral (intravenous or subcutaneous) anticoagulation therapy and warfarin to treat
patients with VTE.
PCI therapy. PCI stands for “percutaneous coronary interventions.” PCI therapy is a coronary angioplasty procedure
performed by a doctor who threads a small device into a clogged artery to open it, thereby improving blood flow to the heart.
A lack of blood supply to the heart muscle can cause lasting heart damage. PCI therapy is used as an alternative treatment to
coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG).
Percentage points. This is the difference on a percentage scale between two rates expressed as percents. For example, the
difference between a performance rate of 85 percent and a performance rate of 92 percent is 7 percentage points.
Perioperative. This generally refers to 24 hours before surgery and lasts until the patient leaves the recovery area.
40 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
Glossary (Cont’d)
Physical restraint. A physical restraint is any manual or physical or mechanical device, material, or equipment that
immobilizes a patient or reduces the ability of a patient to move his or her arms, legs, body or head freely. A physical restraint is
used as a restriction to manage a patient’s behavior or restrict the patient’s freedom of movement and is not a standard
treatment for the patient’s medical or psychiatric condition.
Pneumonia. An acute infection of lung tissue that is associated with at least some symptoms of acute infection, such as altered
or abnormal breathing sounds.
Post discharge continuing care plan. Communication from the hospital to the next health provider after a patient is
discharged from the hospital. The plan must contain the reason for hospitalization, main diagnosis at discharge, a list of
medications at discharge, and recommendations for the next level of care.
Process measure. A measure that focuses on one or more steps that lead to a particular outcome. (See outcomes measure.)
Prophylaxis. Any medical intervention designed to preserve health and prevent disease.
Rehabilitation assessment. Evaluation of the need for or receipt of rehabilitation services. Rehabilitation is a treatment or
treatments designed to facilitate the process of recovery from injury, illness or disease to as normal a condition as possible.
Reliever, for asthma. A medicine that reduces narrowing in the lung’s airways, providing quick relief from asthma symptoms.
Seclusion. Seclusion is the involuntary confinement of a patient alone in a room or an area where the patient is physically
prevented from leaving.
Statin. A class of pharmaceutical agents that lower blood cholesterol. Specifically, the agents modify LDL-cholesterol by
blocking the action of an enzyme in the liver which is needed to synthesize cholesterol, thereby decreasing the level of
cholesterol in the blood. Statins are also called HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors.
Systemic corticosteroid, for asthma. A medication that helps control asthma symptoms by controlling swelling,
inflammation, and the buildup of mucous in the lung’s airways.
Thrombolytic therapy. Administration of a pharmacological agent intended to cause lysis of a thrombus (destruction or
dissolution of a blood clot).
UFH monitoring. Using a protocol or nomogram to ensure that UFH (unfractionated heparin) achieves a sufficient level of
anti-coagulation.
VTE. VTE stands for venous thromboembolism and is when a blood clot forms in a deep vein in the body, such as in the leg.
VTE is a common complication at surgery and hospitalized medical patients, particularly those who have decreased mobility,
are at risk for development of VTE.
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 41
Appendix
Appendix 1: Short and original measure names
Note: This is not a complete list of measures. The short name is the name used in this report.
42 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
Appendix
Appendix 1: Short and original measure names (Cont’d)
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 43
Appendix
44 Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012
Appendix
Perinatal care
Elective delivery
Cesarean section
Antenatal steroids
Health care-associated bloodstream infections in newborns
Exclusive breast milk feeding
Improving America’s Hospitals: The Joint Commission’s Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2012 45