![Shahid Sha Person name](/images/shahid-sha.png)
@ShahidNShah
Every industry under the sun is trying to innovate using the latest technologies - and the healthcare industry is no exception. The pressure to innovate is building by the day. And let us tell you: Innovating in healthcare is not easy.
A large number of innovations come in subtler forms and shapes. Feel free to label your smaller efforts as innovations too. Improvements in your procurement process and creating a harmony between your legal and information security functions are two good examples. Onboarding new services and solutions are innovations, too.
Health Systems are beginning to understand the need to continuously evolve not only in what it innovates, but in how it innovates. Part of this evolution is recognizing the value in external partnerships to advance the culture of innovation.
As part of this evolution, this initiative intends to help set the standard in being easy to do business with. To this end, the initiative will work across the ecosystem to define standards to help develop approaches that both help quickly find and efficiently evaluate solutions, and methods to support adopting and scaling those solutions across our enterprise. Recognizing the necessity to measure that which is important, our group intends to first work with the industry to define what it means to be "easy to do business with".
Does this healthcare system support getting to a yes or no quickly?
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
| |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
We provide dedicated resources to support innovators |
|
|
|
|
|
We provide publicly available information to help innovators understand what we care about |
|
|
|
|
|
We provide timely communications to express interest or discontinue discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
We communicate and provide clear decision pathways |
|
|
|
|
|
We have an established and efficient due diligence pathway |
|
|
|
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
|
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
We provide dedicated resources to support innovators |
|||||
We provide publicly available information to help innovators understand what we care about |
|||||
We provide timely communications to express interest or discontinue discussions |
|||||
We communicate and provide clear decision pathways |
|||||
We have an established and efficient due diligence pathway |
Does this healthcare system have contracting and legal processes that accommodate innovators?
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
| |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
We have financial 'light' policies geared toward innovators |
|
|
|
|
|
We create equitable and favorable terms share upside gains |
|
|
|
|
|
We create contracts with pathways to scale |
|
|
|
|
|
We have a timely contracting process |
|
|
|
|
|
We have legal representatives familiar with working with innovators |
|
|
|
|
|
We have indemnity and insurance clauses that don't overly burden innovators |
|
|
|
|
|
We have legal departments willing to work with innovators with limited legal resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
|
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
We have financial 'light' policies geared toward innovators |
|||||
We create equitable and favorable terms share upside gains |
|||||
We create contracts with pathways to scale |
|||||
We have a timely contracting process |
|||||
We have legal representatives familiar with working with innovators |
|||||
We have indemnity and insurance clauses that don't overly burden innovators |
|||||
We have legal departments willing to work with innovators with limited legal resources |
Does this healthcare system have safety and research policies and processes that both protect patients, but encourage rapid discovery and evaluation?
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
| |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
I would consider my system to be a "clinical research center of excellence for digital technologies |
|
|
|
|
|
Our IRB department has expertise supporting digital clinical trials |
|
|
|
|
|
We have clear policies articulating when IRB is needed for digital trials |
|
|
|
|
|
We have an efficient start to finish time in IRB reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
We have attractive IRB pricing |
|
|
|
|
|
Our IRB is willing to work with other health systems for multi-site research |
|
|
|
|
|
We have a research team that can support digital trials |
|
|
|
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
|
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
I would consider my system to be a "clinical research center of excellence for digital technologies |
|||||
Our IRB department has expertise supporting digital clinical trials |
|||||
We have clear policies articulating when IRB is needed for digital trials |
|||||
We have an efficient start to finish time in IRB reviews |
|||||
We have attractive IRB pricing |
|||||
Our IRB is willing to work with other health systems for multi-site research |
|||||
We have a research team that can support digital trials |
Does this healthcare system make it easy to adopt an emerging health tech solution?
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
| |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
We have clear access to data end points (API/HL7/FHIR) |
|
|
|
|
|
We have an efficient integration process |
|
|
|
|
|
We provide attracting integration pricing to innovators |
|
|
|
|
|
We have onsite integration specialists |
|
|
|
|
|
We use standard integration pathways (network, SAML, data fields, configuration, testing, deployment) |
|
|
|
|
|
We have accessible enterprise cloud and middleware integration solutions |
|
|
|
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
|
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
We have clear access to data end points (API/HL7/FHIR) |
|||||
We have an efficient integration process |
|||||
We provide attracting integration pricing to innovators |
|||||
We have onsite integration specialists |
|||||
We use standard integration pathways (network, SAML, data fields, configuration, testing, deployment) |
|||||
We have accessible enterprise cloud and middleware integration solutions |
Does this healthcare system make data available?
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
| |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
We have a common set of data stewards |
|
|
|
|
|
We have a standard data catalog |
|
|
|
|
|
We have policies related to data sharing for co-development and research |
|
|
|
|
|
We provide access to data sandboxes |
|
|
|
|
|
We can quickly extract and anonymize data sets |
|
|
|
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
|
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
We have a common set of data stewards |
|||||
We have a standard data catalog |
|||||
We have policies related to data sharing for co-development and research |
|||||
We provide access to data sandboxes |
|||||
We can quickly extract and anonymize data sets |
Does this healthcare system have clinical champions to support innovators?
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
| |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
We provide access to dedicated clinical champions |
|
|
|
|
|
We have many principal investigators dedicated to digital tech |
|
|
|
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
|
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
We provide access to dedicated clinical champions |
|||||
We have many principal investigators dedicated to digital tech |
Does this healthcare system support business development beyond the trail/validation period?
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
| |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
We have business development resources focused on digital tech |
|
|
|
|
|
We provide support and pathways to scale |
|
|
|
|
|
We help refer working solutions to other systems |
|
|
|
|
|
We provide access to growth capital |
|
|
|
|
|
We are willing to co-publish |
|
|
|
|
|
We have liberal branding and use of logo policies with partners |
|
|
|
|
|
We provide dedicated investment vehicles |
|
|
|
|
|
We provide board advisors |
|
|
|
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
|
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
We have business development resources focused on digital tech |
|||||
We provide support and pathways to scale |
|||||
We help refer working solutions to other systems |
|||||
We provide access to growth capital |
|||||
We are willing to co-publish |
|||||
We have liberal branding and use of logo policies with partners |
|||||
We provide dedicated investment vehicles |
|||||
We provide board advisors |
Is the healthcare system perceived to be “easy to do business with”?
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
| |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Innovators perceive us as being easy to work with |
|
|
|
|
|
Other health systems perceive us as being easy to work with |
|
|
|
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Neutral
|
Agree
|
Strongly agree
|
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Innovators perceive us as being easy to work with |
|||||
Other health systems perceive us as being easy to work with |
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
Oklahoma AVERAGE
|
NATIONAL AVERAGE
|
---|---|---|---|
|
low
|
|
|
Average (median) time patients spent in the emergency department before leaving from the visit A lower number of minutes is better
|
96
|
Not Available
|
114
|
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
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
171
|
Percentage of patients who left the emergency department before being seen Lower percentages are better
|
1
|
Not Available
|
2
|
Percentage of patients who came to the emergency department with stroke symptoms who received brain scan results within 45 minutes of arrival Higher percentages are better
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
78
|
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
Oklahoma AVERAGE
|
NATIONAL AVERAGE
|
---|---|---|---|
Percentage of patients who received appropriate care for severe sepsis and septic shock. Higher percentages are better
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
51%
|
Septic Shock 3-Hour Bundle
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
82%
|
Septic Shock 6-Hour Bundle
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
73%
|
Severe Sepsis 3-Hour Bundle
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
73%
|
Severe Sepsis 6-Hour Bundle
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
88%
|
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
Oklahoma AVERAGE
|
NATIONAL AVERAGE
|
---|---|---|---|
Healthcare workers given influenza vaccination Higher percentages are better
|
89%
|
Not Available
|
93%
|
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
Oklahoma AVERAGE
|
NATIONAL AVERAGE
|
---|---|---|---|
Outpatients with chest pain or possible heart attack who got drugs to break up blood clots within 30 minutes of arrival Higher percentages are better
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
42 Minutes
|
Average (median) number of minutes before outpatients with chest pain or possible heart attack who needed specialized care were transferred to another hospital A lower number of minutes is better
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
57 Minutes
|
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
Oklahoma AVERAGE
|
NATIONAL AVERAGE
|
---|---|---|---|
Percentage of patients receiving appropriate recommendation for follow-up screening colonoscopy Higher percentages are better
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
93%
|
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
Oklahoma AVERAGE
|
NATIONAL AVERAGE
|
---|---|---|---|
Percentage of patients who had cataract surgery and had improvement in visual function within 90 days following the surgery Higher percentages are better
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
44%
|
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
Oklahoma AVERAGE
|
NATIONAL AVERAGE
|
---|---|---|---|
Percentage of patients receiving appropriate radiation therapy for cancer that has spread to the bone Higher percentages are better
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
92%
|
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
Oklahoma AVERAGE
|
NATIONAL AVERAGE
|
---|---|---|---|
Percent of mothers whose deliveries were scheduled too early (1-2 weeks early), when a scheduled delivery was not medically necessaryLower percentages are better
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
2%
|
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
Oklahoma AVERAGE
|
NATIONAL AVERAGE
|
---|
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
National Results
|
---|---|---|
Rate of complications for hip/knee replacement patients
|
Not Available
|
2.4
|
Perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis rate
|
Not Available
|
3.63
|
Abdominopelvic accidental puncture or laceration rate
|
Not Available
|
1.20
|
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
National Results
|
---|---|---|
Death rate for heart attack patients
|
Not Available
|
12.3
|
Death rate for CABG surgery patients
|
Not Available
|
2.9
|
Death rate for COPD patients
|
Number of Cases Too Small
|
8.1
|
Death rate for heart failure patients
|
Number of Cases Too Small
|
11.2
|
Death rate for pneumonia patients
|
No Different Than the National Rate
|
15.3
|
Death rate for stroke patients
|
Number of Cases Too Small
|
13.5
|
Pressure ulcer rate
|
Not Available
|
0.59
|
Death rate among surgical inpatients with serious treatable complications
|
Not Available
|
159.03
|
Iatrogenic pneumothorax rate
|
Not Available
|
0.23
|
In-hospital fall with hip fracture rate
|
Not Available
|
0.10
|
Perioperative hemorrhage or hematoma rate
|
Not Available
|
2.55
|
Postoperative acute kidney injury requiring dialysis rate
|
Not Available
|
1.42
|
Postoperative respiratory failure rate
|
Not Available
|
5.03
|
Perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis rate
|
Not Available
|
3.63
|
Postoperative sepsis rate
|
Not Available
|
4.90
|
Postoperative wound dehiscence rate
|
Not Available
|
0.86
|
CMS Medicare PSI 90: Patient safety and adverse events composite
|
Not Available
|
1.00
|
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
---|---|
Rate of complications for hip/knee replacement patients
|
Not Available
|
Death rate for heart attack patients
|
Not Available
|
Death rate for CABG surgery patients
|
Not Available
|
Death rate for COPD patients
|
Number of Cases Too Small
|
Death rate for heart failure patients
|
Number of Cases Too Small
|
Death rate for pneumonia patients
|
No Different Than the National Rate
|
Death rate for stroke patients
|
Number of Cases Too Small
|
Pressure ulcer rate
|
Not Available
|
Death rate among surgical inpatients with serious treatable complications
|
Not Available
|
Iatrogenic pneumothorax rate
|
Not Available
|
In-hospital fall with hip fracture rate
|
Not Available
|
Perioperative hemorrhage or hematoma rate
|
Not Available
|
Postoperative acute kidney injury requiring dialysis rate
|
Not Available
|
Postoperative respiratory failure rate
|
Not Available
|
Perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis rate
|
Not Available
|
Postoperative sepsis rate
|
Not Available
|
Postoperative wound dehiscence rate
|
Not Available
|
Abdominopelvic accidental puncture or laceration rate
|
Not Available
|
CMS Medicare PSI 90: Patient safety and adverse events composite
|
Not Available
|
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
National Results
|
---|---|---|
Rate of readmission for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients
|
Number of Cases Too Small
|
Not Available
|
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
National Results
|
---|---|---|
Hospital return days for heart attack patients
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
Hospital return days for heart failure patients
|
Number of Cases Too Small
|
Not Available
|
Hospital return days for pneumonia patients
|
Average Days per 100 Discharges
|
21.6%
|
Ratio of unplanned hospital visits after hospital outpatient surgery
|
Number of cases too small
|
Not Available
|
Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) 30-Day Readmission Rate
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
Heart failure (HF) 30-Day Readmission Rate
|
Number of Cases Too Small
|
Not Available
|
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
National Results
|
---|---|---|
Rate of unplanned hospital visits after colonoscopy (per 1,000 colonoscopies)
|
No Different Than the National Rate
|
16.4%
|
Rate of inpatient admissions for patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
Rate of emergency department (ED) visits for patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
Rate of readmission for CABG
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
The Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB or “Medicare hospital spending per patient”) measure shows whether Medicare spends more, less, or about the same on an episode of care for a Medicare patient treated in a specific inpatient hospital compared to how much Medicare spends on an episode of care across all inpatient hospitals nationally. This measure includes all Medicare Part A and Part B payments made for services provided to a patient during an episode of care, which includes the 3 days prior to the hospital stay, the inpatient hospital stay, and the 30 days after discharge from the hospital.
The MSPB measure score is a ratio calculated by dividing the amount Medicare spent per patient for an episode of care initiated at this hospital by the median (or middle) amount Medicare spent per episode of care nationally. A lower ratio means that Medicare spent less per patient.
A ratio equal to the national average means that Medicare spends ABOUT THE SAME per patient for an episode of care initiated at this hospital as it does per episode of care across all inpatient hospitals nationally.
A ratio that is more than the national average means that Medicare spends MORE per patient for an episode of care initiated at this hospital than it does per episode of care across all inpatient hospitals nationally.
A ratio that is less than the national average means that Medicare spends LESS per patient for an episode of care initiated at this hospital than it does per episode of care across all inpatient hospitals nationally.
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
National Average Payment
|
---|---|---|
Payment for heart attack patients
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
Payment for heart failure patients
|
Number of Cases Too Small
|
Not Available
|
Payment for pneumonia patients
|
No Different Than the National Average Payment
|
$18,791
|
Payment for hip/knee replacement patients
|
Not Available
|
Not Available
|
Measure Description
|
ASCENSION ST JOHN SAPULPA
|
---|---|
Value of Care Heart Attack measure
|
Not Available
|
Value of Care Heart Failure measur
|
Not Available
|
Value of Care Pneumonia measure
|
Average Mortality and Average Payment
|
Value of Care hip/knee replacement
|
Not Available
|
"Given the wide variation in both pricing and collection practices by hospitals, measures of billing practices are needed," the authors stated in the JAMA article. "Billing quality is a type of medical quality."
In the same way that medical complication rates are collected for improvement purposes and some are available to the public, metrics of billing quality could be used to create public accoundability for US hospitals.
Connecting innovation decision makers to authoritative information, institutions, people and insights.
Medigy accurately delivers healthcare and technology information, news and insight from around the world.
Medigy surfaces the world's best crowdsourced health tech offerings with social interactions and peer reviews.
© 2024 Netspective Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Built on Sep 6, 2024 at 12:08pm