Hospital Inpatient Mortality Indicators for California

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Quality Indicators (QIs) are a set of measures that provide a perspective on hospital quality of care using patient data routinely reported to OSHPD. The Inpatient Mortality Indicators (IMIs) are a subset of the AHRQ quality indicators that measure in-hospital mortality. They include medical conditions and procedures for which mortality rates may vary significantly across institutions. Evidence suggests that high mortality may be associated with deficiencies in the quality of hospital care provided.

These indicators are provided by OSHPD for use by California consumers, healthcare purchasers, and healthcare providers. In 2006 and 2007, eight of the 15 AHRQ IMIs were produced by OSHPD for public release. Since 2008, OSHPD has expanded public reporting of AHRQ IMIs to 12 of the 15. In the 2012 AHRQ release, 9 sub-measures were added to the IMIs. OSHPD includes 5 sub-measures and retains 12 of the 15 overall measures for the reports starting with 2013 data.


Executive Summary

Overview

Evidence suggests that high mortality rates may be associated with deficiencies in the quality of hospital care provided. The Inpatient Mortality Indicators (IMIs) are part of a suite of measures called Inpatient Quality Indicators (IQIs), developed by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), that provide a perspective on hospital quality of care, calculated using patient data reported to OSHPD by all California-licensed hospitals.

Why Report IMIs?

OSHPD reports IMIs for California hospitals to improve the quality of patient care in the State through greater transparency, to help consumers make more informed healthcare decisions, to help payers and employers spend their healthcare dollars wisely, and to provide hospitals performance benchmarks that aid in their review of internal processes of care and quality improvement activities.

How OSHPD Calculated IMIs

Data to calculate the IMIs come from all California-licensed hospitals. All IMIs include risk-adjustment, a process that takes into account patients' pre-existing health problems to "level the playing field" and allow fair comparisons among hospitals. For this release OSHPD used Version 5.0 of the AHRQ software that incorporates changes made by AHRQ and OSHPD. Additional information about the IMI calculation methods and technical details about their validity and limitations can be found on the AHRQ website, and in the OSHPD Technical Note.

Data are reported for January – September 2015 due to coding changes from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM/PCS for diagnosis and procedures, which began October 1, 2015. Comparisons of IMIs across years should be made with caution since previous years' results are based on 12 months of data, while this analysis is based on 9 months of data. The 2015 data may differ from previous years due to the coding change.

2015 (January - September) IMI Results

Data Download

Access the 2015 (January - September) IMI ratings of all California-licensed hospitals:

Conditions: Procedures:

Technical Note

The 2015 (January - September) IMI reports include the 12 overall indicators and 5 sub-measures shown below.

California 2015 (January - September) Inpatient Mortality Indicator (IMI) Statewide Mortality Rates (Per 100 Cases)

Medical Conditions
2015
Acute Myocardial Infarction [heart attack including transfers between healthcare facilities] 5.9
Acute Stroke, Total 8.7
Acute Stroke, Hemorrhagic
20.9
Acute Stroke, Ischemic*
5.0
Acute Stroke, Subarachnoid
21.0
Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage [intestinal bleeding] 2.3
Heart Failure 2.9
Hip Fracture** 2.0
Pneumonia 3.3
Procedures
2015
Abdominal Aortic Aneurism Repair, Un-ruptured [for bulging abdominal aorta] 1.3
Carotid Endarterectomy [surgery on the carotid artery in neck] 0.5
Craniotomy [operation through the skull, including brain surgery] 7.1
Esophageal Resection [removal of all or part of the esophagus] 4.3
Pancreatic Resection, Total [removal of all or part of the pancreas] 2.6
Pancreatic Resection, Cancer
2.4
Pancreatic Resection, Other
2.8
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)
[non-surgical coronary artery disease treatment, including insertion of a stent]
3.4

Individual hospitals showed relatively consistent performance across all IMIs. Note that a hospital may perform better or worse on one of the sub-measures but not the total measure, or vice versa. The numbers of "Better" or "Worse" performing hospitals cited below do not include the sub-measures. Among the 328 hospitals in the report:

  • One hundred and twenty-nine hospitals were rated "Better" and 44 were rated "Worse" than the state average on at least one indicator.  There were 161 hospitals rated as "Average," or not significantly different from the state average, on all 12 overall indicators.
  • Among hospitals with "Worse" ratings, 37 were rated "Worse" on a single indicator, six on two indicators, and one on three indicators.
  • Of the hospitals with "Better" ratings, 64 were rated "Better" on a single indicator, 39 on two indicators, 14 on three indicators, nine on four indicators, two on six indicators, and one hospital was rated "Better" on seven of the 12 indicators.
  • Hospitals showed relatively consistent performance across the Indicators.  That is, only four percent of hospitals had "mixed" results – 13 hospitals in 2015 were ranked as "Better" on one indicator and "Worse" on another.

Executive Summary

Overview

Evidence suggests that high mortality rates may be associated with deficiencies in the quality of hospital care provided. The Inpatient Mortality Indicators (IMIs) are part of a suite of measures called Inpatient Quality Indicators (IQIs), developed by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), that provide a perspective on hospital quality of care, calculated using patient data reported to OSHPD by all California-licensed hospitals.

Why Report IMIs?

OSHPD reports IMIs for California hospitals to improve the quality of patient care in the State through greater transparency, to help consumers make more informed healthcare decisions, to help payers and employers spend their healthcare dollars wisely, and to provide hospitals performance benchmarks that aid in their review of internal processes of care and quality improvement activities.

How OSHPD Calculated IMIs

Data to calculate the IMIs come from all California-licensed hospitals. All IMIs include risk-adjustment, a process that takes into account patients' pre-existing health problems to "level the playing field" and allow fair comparisons among hospitals. For this release OSHPD used Version 5.0 of the AHRQ software that incorporates changes made by AHRQ and OSHPD. Additional information about the IMI calculation methods and technical details about their validity and limitations can be found on the AHRQ website, and in the OSHPD Technical Note.

2014 IMI Results

Data Download

Access the 2014 IMI ratings of all California-licensed hospitals:

Conditions: Procedures:

Technical Note

The 2014 IMI reports include the 12 overall indicators and 5 sub-measures shown below.

California 2014 Inpatient Mortality Indicator (IMI) Statewide Mortality Rates (Per 100 Cases)

Medical Conditions
2014
Acute Myocardial Infarction [heart attack including transfers between healthcare facilities] 5.9
Acute Stroke, Total 9.0
Acute Stroke, Hemorrhagic
21.9
Acute Stroke, Ischemic*
5.0
Acute Stroke, Subarachnoid
20.4
Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage [intestinal bleeding] 2.2
Heart Failure 2.9
Hip Fracture** 1.9
Pneumonia 3.8
Procedures
2014
Abdominal Aortic Aneurism Repair, Un-ruptured [for bulging abdominal aorta] 1.2
Carotid Endarterectomy [surgery on the carotid artery in neck] 0.7
Craniotomy [operation through the skull, including brain surgery] 7.0
Esophageal Resection [removal of all or part of the esophagus] 2.9
Pancreatic Resection, Total [removal of all or part of the pancreas] 2.3
Pancreatic Resection, Cancer
2.3
Pancreatic Resection, Other
2.3
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)
[non-surgical coronary artery disease treatment, including insertion of a stent]
3.0

Individual hospitals showed relatively consistent performance across all IMIs. Note that a hospital may perform better or worse on one of the sub-measures but not the total measure, or vice versa. The numbers of "Better" or "Worse" performing hospitals cited below do not include the sub-measures. Among the 328 hospitals in the report:

  • One hundred and thirty-eight hospitals were rated "Better" and 71 were rated "Worse" than the state average on at least one indicator. There were 139 hospitals rated as "Average," or not significantly different from the state average, on all 12 overall indicators.
  • Among hospitals with "Worse" ratings, 50 were rated "Worse" on a single indicator, 17 on two indicators, two on three indicators, and two on four indicators.
  • Of the hospitals with "Better" ratings, 80 were rated "Better" on a single indicator, 34 on two indicators, 16 on three indicaotrs, seven on four indicators, and one hospital was rated "Better" on five of the 12 indicators.
  • Individual hospitals showed relatively consistent performance across the Indicators. That is, only six percent of hospitals had "mixed" results – 20 hospitals in 2014 were ranked as "Better" on one indicator and "Worse" on another.

Executive Summary

Overview

Evidence suggests that high mortality rates may be associated with deficiencies in the quality of hospital care provided. The Inpatient Mortality Indicators (IMIs) are part of a suite of measures called Inpatient Quality Indicators (IQIs), developed by the Federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), that provide a perspective on hospital quality of care, calculated using patient data reported to OSHPD by all California-licensed hospitals.

Why Report IMIs?

OSHPD reports IMIs for California hospitals to improve the quality of patient care in the State through greater transparency, to help consumers make more informed healthcare decisions, to help payers and employers spend their healthcare dollars more wisely, and to provide hospitals performance benchmarks that aid in their review of internal processes of care and quality improvement activities.

How OSHPD Calculated IMIs

Data to calculate the IMIs come from all California-licensed hospitals. All IMIs include risk-adjustment, a process that takes into account patients' pre-existing health problems to "level the playing field" and allow fair comparisons among hospitals. For this release OSHPD used version 4.5 of the AHRQ software that incorporates changes made by AHRQ and OSHPD.  Additional information about the IMI calculation methods and technical details about their validity and limitations can be found on the AHRQ website, and in the OSHPD Technical Note.

2013 IMI Results

Data Download

Access the 2013 IMI ratings of all California-licensed hospitals:

Conditions: Procedures:

Technical Note

The 2013 IMI reports include the 12 overall indicators and 5 sub-measures shown below.

California 2013 Inpatient Mortality Indicator (IMI) Statewide Mortality Rates (Per 100 Cases)

Medical Conditions
2013
Acute Myocardial Infarction [heart attack including transfers between healthcare facilities] 6.0
Acute Stroke, Total 9.2
Acute Stroke, Hemorrhagic
21.9
Acute Stroke, Ischemic
4.9
Acute Stroke, Subarachnoid
24.6
Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage [intestinal bleeding] 2.3
Heart Failure 3.0
Hip Fracture 2.0
Pneumonia 3.9
Procedures
2013
Abdominal Aortic Aneurism Repair, Un-ruptured [for bulging abdominal aorta] 1.4
Carotid Endarterectomy [surgery on the carotid artery in neck] 0.5
Craniotomy [operation through the skull, including brain surgery] 7.2
Esophageal Resection [removal of all or part of the esophagus] 4.8
Pancreatic Resection, Total [removal of all or part of the pancreas] 3.5
Pancreatic Resection, Cancer
3.3
Pancreatic Resection, Other
3.8
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)
[non-surgical coronary artery disease treatment, including insertion of a stent]
2.7

Executive Summary

Overview

Evidence suggests that high mortality may be associated with deficiencies in the quality of hospital care provided. The Inpatient Mortality Indicators (IMIs) are part of a suite of measures called Inpatient Quality Indicators (IQIs), developed by the Federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), that provide a perspective on hospital quality of care, calculated using patient data reported to OSHPD by all California-licensed hospitals.

Why Report IMIs?

The OSHPD reports IMIs for California hospitals to improve the quality of patient care in the State through greater transparency, to help consumers make more informed healthcare decisions, to help payers and employers spend their healthcare dollars more wisely, and to provide hospitals performance benchmarks that aid in their review of internal processes of care and quality improvement activities.

How OSHPD Calculated IMIs

Data to calculate the IMIs come from all California-licensed hospitals. All IMIs include risk-adjustment, a process that takes into account patients' pre-existing health problems to "level the playing field" and allow fair comparisons among hospitals. For this release OSHPD used a new version of the AHRQ software that incorporates changes made by AHRQ and OSHPD.  Additional information about the IMI calculation methods and technical details about their validity and limitations can be found on the AHRQ website, and in the OSHPD Technical Note.

2012 IMI Results

Data Download

Access the 2012 IMI ratings of all California-licensed hospitals:

Conditions: Procedures:

Technical Note

The 2012 IMI reports include the 12 overall indicators and 5 sub-measures shown below.

California 2012 Inpatient Mortality Indicator (IMI) Statewide Mortality Rates (Per 100 Cases)

Medical Conditions
2012
Acute Myocardial Infarction [heart attack including transfers between healthcare facilities] 6.3
Acute Stroke, Total 9.6
       Acute Stroke, Hemorrhagic 23.0
       Acute Stroke, Ischemic 5.3
       Acute Stroke, Subarachnoid 23.8
Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage [intestinal bleeding] 2.1
Heart Failure 3.0
Hip Fracture 2.3
Pneumonia 4.0
Procedures
2012
Abdominal Aortic Aneurism Repair, Un-ruptured [for bulging abdominal aorta] 1.1
Carotid Endarterectomy [surgery on the carotid artery in neck] 0.5
Craniotomy [operation through the skull, including brain surgery] 7.1
Esophageal Resection [removal of all or part of the esophagus] 5.7
Pancreatic Resection, Total [removal of all or part of the pancreas] 2.4
         Pancreatic Resection, Cancer 2.0
         Pancreatic Resection, Other 2.8
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)
[non-surgical coronary artery disease treatment, including insertion of a stent]
2.5

Individual hospitals showed relatively consistent performance across all IMIs. Note that hospitals may be better or worse on one of the sub-measures but not on total measures, or vice versa. The numbers of “Better” or “Worse” performing hospitals cited below are for only the total measures. Among the 328 hospitals in the report:

  • 59 hospitals were rated “Better” and 79 were rated “Worse” than the state average on at least one indicator. 193 hospitals were rated as “Average,” or not significantly different from the state average, on all 12 overall indicators.
  • Among hospitals with “Worse” ratings, 59 were rated “Worse” on a single indicator, 13 on two indicators, 4 on three indicators, 2 on four indicators, and 1 on five indicators.
  • Of the hospitals with “Better” ratings, 41 were rated “Better” on a single indicator, 12 on two indicators, 5 on three indicators, and one hospital was rated “Better” on four of the 12 indicators.

Executive Summary

Overview

Evidence suggests that high mortality may be associated with deficiencies in the quality of hospital care provided.  The Inpatient Mortality Indicators (IMIs) are part of a suite of measures called Inpatient Quality Indicators (IQIs), developed by the Federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), that provide a perspective on hospital quality of care, calculated using patient data reported to OSHPD by all California-licensed hospitals.

Why Report IMIs?

The OSHPD reports IMIs for California hospitals to improve the quality of patient care in the State through greater transparency, to help consumers make more informed healthcare decisions, to help payers and employers spend their healthcare dollars more wisely, and to provide hospitals performance benchmarks that aid in their review of internal processes of care and quality improvement activities.

How OSHPD Calculated IMIs

Data to calculate IMIs come from all California-licensed hospitals.  All IMIs include risk-adjustment, a process that takes into account patients' pre-existing health problems to "level the playing field" and allow fair comparisons among hospitals. For this release OSHPD is using a new version of the AHRQ software that incorporates changes made by AHRQ and OSHPD. Importantly, OSHPD no longer incorporates national data in benchmarking California hospital performance - all hospital comparisons are with California data only. This has resulted in a more balanced number of "Better" and "Worse"-performing hospitals this year. It has also made comparisons of hospital performance with prior years not possible. Additional information about the IMI calculation methods, and technical details about their validity and limitations can be found on the AHRQ website, and in the OSHPD Technical Note.

2010 & 2011 IMI Results

Data Download

Access the 2010 & 2011 IMI ratings of all California-licensed hospitals:

2011 Inpatient Mortality Indicators: 2010 Inpatient Mortality Indicators:

Technical Note

The 2010 and 2011 IMI reports include the 12 overall indicators shown below.

California 2011 Inpatient Mortality Indicator (IMI) Statewide Mortality Rates (Per 100 Cases)

Medical Conditions
2010
2011
Acute Stroke [including hemorrhagic] 10 9.4
Acute Myocardial Infarction [heart attack including transfers between healthcare facilities] 6.8 6.5
Heart Failure 3 3
Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage [intestinal bleeding] 2.2 2.2
Hip Fracture 2.5 2.3
Pneumonia 4.1 4.1
Procedures
2010
2011
Abdominal Aortic Aneurism Repair [for bulging abdominal aorta] 1.4 1.9
Carotid Endarterectomy [surgery on the carotid artery in neck] 0.5 0.5
Craniotomy [operation through the skull, including brain surgery] 6.6 6.8
Esophageal Resection [removal of all or part of the esophagus] 3.9 3.8
Pancreatic Resection [removal of all or part of the pancreas] 4.5 3.1
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)
[non-surgical coronary artery disease treatment, including insertion of a stent]
2 2.3

Among hospitals in 2010 and 2011:

  • Individual hospitals showed relatively consistent performance across the 12 IMIs.
  • Many hospitals showed consistent performance across the two years. Hospitals that scored “Worse” on at least one indicator in 2010 were 5.7 times more likely than other hospitals to score “Worse” on at least one indicator in 2011.  Similarly, “Better” hospitals in 2010 were 6.5 times more likely to have performed “Better” in 2011.

In 2011, among 331 hospitals in the report:

  • 65 hospitals were rated “Better” and 95 were rated “Worse” than the state average on at least one indicator. 183 hospitals were rated as “Average,” or not significantly different from the state average, on all 12 indicators.
  • Among hospitals with “Worse” ratings, 70 were rated “Worse” on a single indicator, 19 on two indicators, 5 on three indicators, and 1 on five indicators. 
  • Of the hospitals with “Better” ratings, 46 were rated “Better” on a single indicator, 15 on two indicators, and 4 hospitals were rated “Better” on three of the 12 indicators.

In 2010, among 331 hospitals in the report:

  • 56 hospitals were rated "Better" and 82 were rated "Worse" than the state average on at least one indicator. 194 hospitals were rated as "Average," or not significantly different from the state average, on all 12 indicators.
  • Among hospitals with "Worse" ratings, 55 were rated "Worse" on a single indicator, 16 on two indicators, 7 on three indicators, 3 on four indicators, and 1 on five indicators.
  • Of the hospitals with "Better" ratings, 34 were rated "Better" on a single indicator, 14 on two indicators, 7 on three indicators, and 1 hospital was rated "Better" on four of the 12 indicators.

Executive Summary

Overview

Evidence suggests that high mortality may be associated with deficiencies in the quality of hospital care provided.  The Inpatient Mortality Indicators (IMIs) are part of a suite of measures called Inpatient Quality Indicators (IQIs), developed by the Federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), that provide a perspective on hospital quality of care, calculated using patient data reported to OSHPD by all California-licensed hospitals.

Why Report IMIs?

The OSHPD reports IMIs for California hospitals to improve the quality of patient care in the State through greater transparency, to help consumers make more informed healthcare decisions, to help payers and employers spend their healthcare dollars more wisely, and to provide hospitals performance benchmarks, that aid in their review of internal processes of care and quality improvement activities.

How OSHPD Calculated IMIs

Data to calculate IMIs come from all California-licensed hospitals.  All IMIs include risk-adjustment, a process that takes into account patients' pre-existing health problems to "level the playing field" and allow fair comparisons among hospitals. Additional information about the IMI calculation methods, and technical details about their validity and limitations can be found on the AHRQ website, and in the OSHPD Technical Note.

2008 & 2009 IMI Results

Data Download

Access the 2008 & 2009 IMI ratings of all California-licensed hospitals:

2009 Inpatient Mortality Indicators: 2008 Inpatient Mortality Indicators:

Technical Note

The 2008 and 2009 IMI reports include the 12 overall indicators and 5 sub-measures shown below.

California 2008 & 2009 Inpatient Mortality Indicator (IMI) Statewide Mortality Rates (Per 100 Cases)

Medical Conditions
2008
2009
Acute Stroke [including hemorrhagic] 10.6 10.4
Acute Myocardial Infarction* [heart attack including transfers between healthcare facilities] 7.5 7.1
Congestive Heart Failure* [heart failure] 3.4 3.3
Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage [intestinal bleeding] 2.4 2.3
Hip Fracture 2.7 2.4
Pneumonia* 4.8 4.6
Procedures
2008
2009
Abdominal Aortic Artery Repair* [for ruptured or bulging aorta] 2.1 1.9
Carotid Endarterectomy [surgery on the carotid artery in neck] 0.6 0.7
Craniotomy [operation through the skull, including brain surgery] 7.5 6.7
Esophageal Resection [removal of all or part of the esophagus] 5.4 5.8
Pancreatic Resection [removal of all or part of the pancreas] 5.0 5.2
Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) [non-surgical coronary artery disease treatment, may include insertion of a stent] 1.8 1.9

Among hospitals in 2008 and 2009:

  • Individual hospitals showed relatively consistent performance across the 12 IMIs.
  • Many hospitals showed consistent performance across the two years. Hospitals that scored “Worse” on at least one indicator in 2008 were five times more likely than other hospitals to score “Worse” on at least one indicator in 2009.  Similarly, “Better” hospitals in 2008 were six times more likely to have performed “Better” in 2009.
  • More hospitals were rated better in 2009 than in 2008, and fewer were rated worse in 2009 than in 2008.

In 2009, among 335 hospitals in the report:

  • 119 hospitals were rated “Better” and 64 were rated “Worse” than the state average on at least one indicator. 160 hospitals were rated as “Average,” or not significantly different from the state average, on all 12 indicators.
  • Among hospitals with “Worse” ratings, 50 were rated “Worse” on a single indicator, 11 on two indicators, and 3 on three indicators. 
  • Of the hospitals with “Better” ratings, 61 were rated “Better” on a single indicator, 35 on two indicators, 17 on three indicators, 5 on four indicators, and one hospital was rated “Better” on 6 of the 12 indicators.

2006 & 2007 IMI Results

Data Download

Access the 2006 & 2007 IMI ratings of all California-licensed hospitals:

2007 Inpatient Mortality Indicators: 2006 Inpatient Mortality Indicators:

Technical Note

Hospitals were invited to submit letters commenting on their performance on the Inpatient Mortality Indicators. These can be found as links in the pdf and Excel (xls) files above.

These indicators (Inpatient Quality Indicators, Version 3.2) were developed by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and are provided by OSHPD for use by California consumers, healthcare purchasers, and healthcare providers. Eight of the 15 AHRQ Inpatient Mortality Indicators have been produced by OSHPD for public release.

Five indicators relate to in-hospital death after surgery:

  • Esophageal Resection
  • Pancreatic Resection
  • Craniotomy
  • Carotid Endarterectomy
  • Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA)

Three indicators relate to in-hospital death after treatment for medical conditions:

  • Acute Stroke
  • Gastrointestinal (GI) Hemorrhage
  • Hip Fracture

These indicators were created using patient data submitted electronically by the hospitals. The data were not validated by OSHPD beyond the routine error-checking that occurs during the data submission process. Additional information about the methods for calculating these indicators, along with detailed technical explanations, is provided by AHRQ at their website. AHRQ also provides valuable guidance regarding the validity of these indicators and important limitations on their use as quality measures. For additional information about the methods that OSHPD used in calculating the Inpatient Mortality Indicators, see the 2006-2007 Technical Note.


*OSHPD also produces additional ischemic stroke measures for 30-day mortality and 30-day readmissions.

**OSHPD also produces a 30-day mortality hip fracture repair measure.


OSHPD views these indicators as potentially useful starting points for examining hospital quality but does not regard them as definitive measures of quality. When this information is carefully considered, with its limitations, alongside other reliable healthcare provider information, it may also be helpful to patients and purchasers such as insurance providers when making decisions about healthcare choices. Healthcare providers may also benefit from using this information in quality improvement activities.

These indicators were created using patient data submitted electronically by the hospitals. The data were not validated by OSHPD beyond the routine error-checking that occurs during the data submission process. Additional information about the methods for calculating these indicators, along with detailed technical explanations, is provided by AHRQ at their website. AHRQ also provides valuable guidance regarding the validity of these indicators and important limitations on their use as quality measures.

Risk Adjustment

Some hospitals tend to treat higher-risk patients who have a greater chance of dying following a surgical procedure or treatment for a serious medical condition. To assure all California hospitals are assessed fairly, OSHPD uses statistical risk adjustment to account for patient differences.

All mortality indicators presented here have been risk-adjusted using the All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRGs), a proprietary tool of the 3M Health Information Systems Corporation. See the AHRQ Web site and the OSHPD Technical Notes (2006, 2007) (2008, 2009) (2010, 2011) (2012) (2013) (2014) for more detailed information.


This page was last updated on Tuesday, May 9, 2017.

Find Data and Reports