EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER Ratings and Reviews

About EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER is a Acute Care Hospitals. It is in DANVILLE, KY. Its type of ownership is Voluntary non-profit - Private. The facility's Medicare ID is 180048. It does provide emergency services. There are 240 medical professionals and 83 doctor groups affiliated with the hospital. On average at EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, emergency patients were charged $24,976. This is lower than the state average of $25,650. It is also lower than the national average of $25,828.

Quick Links to EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER Data & Analysis

Survey Analysis
Cost Analysis
Infection Rates
Hospital Comparison
Nearby Skilled Nursing Facilities
List of Associated Doctors

Patient Survey Results

Below is information compiled by CMS on the percentage of patients who respond to specific treatments and a comparison of the results for EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER to the national results for similar facilities.

Survey Question	Response
Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" communicated well	76 %
Patients who reported that their nurses "Sometimes" or "Never" communicated well	4 %
Patients who reported that their nurses "Usually" communicated well	20 %
Nurse communication - linear mean score	Not Applicable
Nurse communication - star rating	Not Applicable
Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" treated them with courtesy and respect	86 %
Patients who reported that their nurses "Sometimes" or "Never" treated them with courtesy and respect	1 %
Patients who reported that their nurses "Usually" treated them with courtesy and respect	13 %
Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" listened carefully to them	72 %
Patients who reported that their nurses "Sometimes" or "Never" listened carefully to them	6 %
Patients who reported that their nurses "Usually" listened carefully to them	22 %
Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" explained things in a way they could understand	70 %
Patients who reported that their nurses "Sometimes" or "Never" explained things in a way they could understand	7 %
Patients who reported that their nurses "Usually" explained things in a way they could understand	23 %
Patients who reported that their doctors "Always" communicated well	77 %
Patients who reported that their doctors "Sometimes" or "Never" communicated well	5 %
Patients who reported that their doctors "Usually" communicated well	18 %
Doctor communication - linear mean score	Not Applicable
Doctor communication - star rating	Not Applicable
Patients who reported that their doctors "Always" treated them with courtesy and respect	85 %
Patients who reported that their doctors "Sometimes" or "Never" treated them with courtesy and respect	4 %
Patients who reported that their doctors "Usually" treated them with courtesy and respect	11 %
Patients who reported that their doctors "Always" listened carefully to them	75 %
Patients who reported that their doctors "Sometimes" or "Never" listened carefully to them	6 %
Patients who reported that their doctors "Usually" listened carefully to them	19 %
Patients who reported that their doctors "Always" explained things in a way they could understand	69 %
Patients who reported that their doctors "Sometimes" or "Never" explained things in a way they could understand	6 %
Patients who reported that their doctors "Usually" explained things in a way they could understand	25 %
Patients who reported that they "Always" received help as soon as they wanted	66 %
Patients who reported that they "Sometimes" or "Never" received help as soon as they wanted	7 %
Patients who reported that they "Usually" received help as soon as they wanted	27 %
Staff responsiveness - linear mean score	Not Applicable
Staff responsiveness - star rating	Not Applicable
Patients who reported that they "Always" received help after using the call button as soon as they wanted	65 %
Patients who reported that they "Sometimes" or "Never" received help after using the call button as soon as they wanted	5 %
Patients who reported that they "Usually" received help after using the call button as soon as they wanted	30 %
Patients who reported that they "Always" received bathroom help as soon as they wanted	64 %
Patients who reported that they "Sometimes" or "Never" received bathroom help as soon as they wanted	10 %
Patients who reported that they "Usually" received bathroom help as soon as they wanted	26 %
Patients who reported that staff "Always" explained about medicines before giving it to them	60 %
Patients who reported that staff "Sometimes" or "Never" explained about medicines before giving it to them	21 %
Patients who reported that staff "Usually" explained about medicines before giving it to them	19 %
Communication about medicines - linear mean score	Not Applicable
Communication about medicines - star rating	Not Applicable
Patients who reported that when receiving new medication the staff "Always" communicated what the medication was for	73 %
Patients who reported that when receiving new medication the staff "Sometimes" or "Never" communicated what the medication was for	10 %
Patients who reported that when receiving new medication the staff "Usually" communicated what the medication was for.	17 %
Patients who reported that when receiving new medication the staff "Always" discussed possible side effects	47 %
Patients who reported that when receiving new medication the staff "Sometimes" or "Never" discussed possible side effects	31 %
Patients who reported that when receiving new medication the staff "Usually" discussed possible side effects	22 %
Patients who reported that NO, they were not given information about what to do during their recovery at home	18 %
Patients who reported that YES, they were given information about what to do during their recovery at home	82 %
Discharge information - linear mean score	Not Applicable
Discharge information - star rating	Not Applicable
Patients who reported that NO, they did not discuss whether they would need help after discharge	22 %
Patients who reported that YES, they did discuss whether they would need help after discharge	78 %
Patients who reported that NO, they did not receive written information about possible symptoms to look out for after discharge	14 %
Patients who reported that YES, they did receive written information about possible symptoms to look out for after discharge	86 %
Patients who "Agree" they understood their care when they left the hospital	48 %
Patients who "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree" they understood their care when they left the hospital	5 %
Patients who "Strongly Agree" they understood their care when they left the hospital	47 %
Care transition - linear mean score	Not Applicable
Care transition - star rating	Not Applicable
Patients who "Agree" that the staff took my preferences into account when determining my health care needs	53 %
Patients who "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree" that the staff took my preferences into account when determining my health care needs	7 %
Patients who "Strongly Agree" that the staff took my preferences into account when determining my health care needs	40 %
Patients who "Agree" that they understood their responsiblities in managing their health	47 %
Patients who "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree" that they understood their responsiblities in managing their health	6 %
Patients who "Strongly Agree" that they understood their responsiblities in managing their health	47 %
Patients who "Agree" that they understood the purposes of their medications when leaving the hospital	42 %
Patients who "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree" that they understood the purposes of their medications when leaving the hospital	5 %
Patients who "Strongly Agree" that they understood the purposes of their medications when leaving the hospital	53 %
Patients who reported that their room and bathroom were "Always" clean	66 %
Patients who reported that their room and bathroom were "Sometimes" or "Never" clean	12 %
Patients who reported that their room and bathroom were "Usually" clean	22 %
Cleanliness - linear mean score	Not Applicable
Cleanliness - star rating	Not Applicable
Patients who reported that the area around their room was "Always" quiet at night	61 %
Patients who reported that the area around their room was "Sometimes" or "Never" quiet at night	9 %
Patients who reported that the area around their room was "Usually" quiet at night	30 %
Quietness - linear mean score	Not Applicable
Quietness - star rating	Not Applicable
Patients who gave their hospital a rating of 6 or lower on a scale from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest)	6 %
Patients who gave their hospital a rating of 7 or 8 on a scale from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest)	27 %
Patients who gave their hospital a rating of 9 or 10 on a scale from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest)	67 %
Overall hospital rating - linear mean score	Not Applicable
Overall hospital rating - star rating	Not Applicable
Patients who reported NO, they would probably not or definitely not recommend the hospital	4 %
Patients who reported YES, they would definitely recommend the hospital	65 %
Patients who reported YES, they would probably recommend the hospital	31 %
Recommend hospital - linear mean score	Not Applicable
Recommend hospital - star rating	Not Applicable
Summary star rating	Not Applicable

Cost of EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Compare to National and State Averages

Understanding how much a hospital is going to cost is extremely difficult. Hospitals themselves actively obscure what they charge and have negotiated different rates with different insurers. Then you have the problem of the wide variety of treatments which the EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER provides.

To provide some standard metric to compare hospital costs, CMS publishes the MSPB (or "Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary"). Even though you may not be on Medicare, this metric may still be useful. The MSPB is expressed as a percentage compared to the national average for costs that Medicare incurs. A percentage higher than 100% means the hospital charges more than the national average while a percentage less than 100% means the hospital charges less than the national average.

MSPB for EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Not Available

Detailed table for spending and period for patients at EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER:

Type	Amount
Home Health Agency (1 to 3 days Prior to Index Hospital Admission)	$40
Hospice (1 to 3 days Prior to Index Hospital Admission)	$0
Inpatient (1 to 3 days Prior to Index Hospital Admission)	$45
Outpatient (1 to 3 days Prior to Index Hospital Admission)	$366
Skilled Nursing Facility (1 to 3 days Prior to Index Hospital Admission)	$63
Durable Medical Equipment (1 to 3 days Prior to Index Hospital Admission)	$15
Carrier (1 to 3 days Prior to Index Hospital Admission)	$678
Home Health Agency (During Index Hospital Admission)	$0
Hospice (During Index Hospital Admission)	$0
Inpatient (During Index Hospital Admission)	$10,776
Outpatient (During Index Hospital Admission)	$0
Skilled Nursing Facility (During Index Hospital Admission)	$0
Durable Medical Equipment (During Index Hospital Admission)	$29
Carrier (During Index Hospital Admission)	$1,499
Home Health Agency (1 through 30 days After Discharge from Index Hospital Admission)	$852
Hospice (1 through 30 days After Discharge from Index Hospital Admission)	$286
Inpatient (1 through 30 days After Discharge from Index Hospital Admission)	$2,376
Outpatient (1 through 30 days After Discharge from Index Hospital Admission)	$1,066
Skilled Nursing Facility (1 through 30 days After Discharge from Index Hospital Admission)	$5,764
Durable Medical Equipment (1 through 30 days After Discharge from Index Hospital Admission)	$110
Carrier (1 through 30 days After Discharge from Index Hospital Admission)	$1,011
Total (Complete Episode)	$24,976

Infection Rates at EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

These measures show how often patients at EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER contract certain infections during the course of their medical treatment, when compared to other hospitals nationally.

Infection Type	Score / Compare to National Average
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit	0.39 / Same
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit	2.93 / Same
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection: Number of Device Days	3,155.00 / Same
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases	3.29 / Same
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases	4.00 / Same
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection (ICU + select Wards)	1.22 / Same
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Lower Confidence Limit	-- / Better
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Upper Confidence Limit	0.69 / Better
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Number of Urinary Catheter Days	3,573.00 / Better
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Predicted Cases	4.37 / Better
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards): Observed Cases	0.00 / Better
Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections (ICU + select Wards)	0.00 / Better
SSI - Colon Surgery: Lower Confidence Limit	0.09 / Same
SSI - Colon Surgery: Upper Confidence Limit	1.67 / Same
SSI - Colon Surgery: Number of Procedures	149.00 / Same
SSI - Colon Surgery: Predicted Cases	3.97 / Same
SSI - Colon Surgery: Observed Cases	2.00 / Same
SSI - Colon Surgery	0.50 / Same
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Lower Confidence Limit	Not Available / Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Upper Confidence Limit	Not Available / Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Number of Procedures	43.00 / Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Predicted Cases	0.37 / Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy: Observed Cases	0.00 / Not Available
SSI - Abdominal Hysterectomy	Not Available / Not Available
MRSA Bacteremia: Lower Confidence Limit	0.42 / Same
MRSA Bacteremia: Upper Confidence Limit	4.51 / Same
MRSA Bacteremia: Patient Days	31,427.00 / Same
MRSA Bacteremia: Predicted Cases	1.81 / Same
MRSA Bacteremia: Observed Cases	3.00 / Same
MRSA Bacteremia	1.66 / Same
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Lower Confidence Limit	0.25 / Same
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Upper Confidence Limit	1.13 / Same
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Patient Days	30,314.00 / Same
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Predicted Cases	12.29 / Same
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff): Observed Cases	7.00 / Same
Clostridium Difficile (C.Diff)	0.57 / Same

How EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER Compares to Other Similar Facilities

This is how EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER compares to other similar hospitals nationally based on data provided to CMS.

Top Hospitals in DANVILLE, KY

Worst Hospitals in DANVILLE, KY

Percentages of Complications and Deaths at EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

Measure	Score	Compared to National Rates
Rate of complications for hip/knee replacement patients	NA	Not Enough Data
Death rate for heart attack patients	14.2%	SAME
Death rate for CABG surgery patients	NA	Not Enough Data
Death rate for COPD patients	10.1%	SAME
Death rate for heart failure patients	16.5%	Worse
Death rate for pneumonia patients	19.5%	SAME
Death rate for stroke patients	17.1%	SAME
Pressure ulcer rate	0.37%	SAME
Death rate among surgical inpatients with serious treatable complications	219.08%	SAME
Iatrogenic pneumothorax rate	0.28%	SAME
In-hospital fall with hip fracture rate	0.09%	SAME
Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma rate	2.6%	SAME
Postoperative acute kidney injury requiring dialysis rate	1.32%	SAME
Postoperative respiratory failure rate	12.38%	SAME
Perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis rate	3.74%	SAME
Postoperative sepsis rate	6.23%	SAME
Postoperative wound dehiscence rate	1.79%	SAME
Abdominopelvic accidental puncture or laceration rate	1.56%	SAME
CMS Medicare PSI 90: Patient safety and adverse events composite	1.09%	SAME

Skilled Nursing Facilities Near EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

Many hospital patients are not ready to return home after a hospital visit. If recovery is going to be protracted, doctors will often advise that the patients recuperate at a skilled nursing facility. Below is a list of the skilled nursing homes near EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ranked by their CMS 5-Star Overall Rating.

Facility Name	Overall Rating
Rockcastle Regional Hospital and Respiratory Care	5:
The Willows at Harrodsburg	5:
Thomson-Hood Veterans Center	5:
The Willows at Fritz Farm	5:
Springfield Nursing and Rehabilitation Center	4:
Harrodsburg Health and Rehabilitation Center	3:
Bluegrass Care and Rehabilitation Center	3:
Rockcastle Health and Rehabilitation Center	2:
Northpoint/lexington Healthcare Center	2:
Sayre Christian Village Nursing Home	2:
Liberty Care and Rehabilitation Center	1:
Stanford Crossing	1:
Landmark of Lancaster Rehabilitation and Nursing C	1:
Landmark of Danville Rehabilitation and Nursing Ce	1:
Danville Centre For Health and Rehabilitation	1:
Nicholasville Nursing and Rehabilitation	1:
Mayfair Manor	1:

Medical Groups Affiliated with EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

There are 240 doctors and 83 medical groups that are affiliated with EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER.

Affiliated Doctor Groups

The list of medical professionals associated with EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER is very long, so we have added another pages. See a list of medical professionals associated with EPHRAIM MCDOWELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER.