Table 1: Availability of Quality Reports
Community / Reports with Physician Quality Measures / Reports with Hospital Quality MeasuresTotal / Reports Available to All‡ / % of Population with Access to Health Plan Sponsored Physician Quality Reports§ / % of Health Plan Enrollees with Access to Health Plan Sponsored Reports§ / Total / Reports Available to All‡ / % of Population with Access to Health Plan Sponsored Reports§ / % of Health Plan Enrollees with Access to Health Plan Sponsored Reports§
Albany, NY / 3 / 2 / 1.17 / 1.3 / 9 / 6 / 15.01 / 16.9
Cincinnati, OH * / 6 / 1 / 41.41 / 52.6 / 11 / 6 / 41.41 / 52.6
Cleveland, OH * / 4 / 1 / 6.1 / 8.1 / 8 / 4 / 20.93 / 27.7
Colorado / 6 / 2 / 24.84 / 31.9 / 7 / 2 / 24.84 / 31.9
Detroit, MI * / 6 / 2 / 37.58 / 52.1 / 8 / 4 / 37.58 / 52.1
Humboldt County, CA * / 9 / 4 / 20.49 / 36.9 / 9 / 4 / 20.49 / 36.9
Kansas City, MO * / 5 / 1 / 27.2 / 34.5 / 6 / 1 / 44.82 / 56.9
Kings County, CA / 8 / 4 / 27.89 / 46.0 / 8 / 4 / 27.89 / 46.0
Lehigh County, PA / 3 / 1 / 13.38 / 13.4 / 7 / 4 / 61.09 / 61.2
Maine * / 5 / 2 / 22.4 / 29.9 / 8 / 3 / 58.7 / 78.3
Memphis, TN * / 6 / 2 / 32.34 / 42.3 / 5 / 1 / 32.34 / 42.3
Minnesota *† / 9 / 7 / 32.45 / 37.8 / 12 / 7 / 21.31 / 24.8
Nashville, TN / 4 / 0 / 54.31 / 65.1 / 5 / 1 / 54.31 / 65.1
New Hampshire / 4 / 1 / 17.3 / 26.6 / 8 / 3 / 44.22 / 68.0
Pittsburgh, PA / 4 / 1 / 8.14 / 10 / 8 / 4 / 51.28 / 62.9
Puget Sound, WA * / 4 / 2 / 20.5 / 25.2 / 6 / 2 / 20.5 / 25.2
South Central, PA * / 4 / 2 / 2.94 / 3.6 / 7 / 4 / 42.58 / 52.2
West Michigan * / 4 / 1 / 23.31 / 29.9 / 6 / 3 / 23.31 / 29.9
Western New York * / 3 / 2 / 1.13 / 1.3 / 7 / 6 / 1.13 / 29.9
Willamette Valley, OR * / 1 / 0 / 6.44 / 8.6 / 7 / 5 / 6.44 / 8.6
Wisconsin * / 5 / 2 / 27.2 / 37.0 / 9 / 4 / 37.72 / 51.3
Mean / 4.9 / 1.9 / 21.36 / 28.29 / 7.7 / 3.7 / 32.76 / 43.84
Entries in table are number of reports unless noted otherwise.
*Designates AF4Q area
†Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, the primary insurer does not produce a separate quality report; however, it does provide members with a link to other provider quality reports.
‡Reports available to the public (without a secure log-in for web reports). Almost all health plan reports require a secure log-in and therefore are not available to everyone in an area. They are not included in the calculation unless accessible to everyone in a study area.
§Proportion of population or private health plan enrollees in MSA who are enrolled in health plans producing reports with physician or hospital quality measures. Enrollment data are from 2006 Interstudy health plan survey and population estimates include private health plan, Medicaid, and Medicare enrollments and estimated uninsured individuals.
Table 2: Credibility of Quality Reports
Community / Reports with Physician Quality Measures / Reports with Hospital Quality MeasuresTotal / Sponsor† / Source of Measures‡ / Type of Data§ / Total / Sponsor† / Source of Measures‡ / Type of Data§
Local / State / Health
Plan / National / Local/Unique / Claims / Patient Record / Patient Survey / Provider Survey / Local / State / Health
Plan / National / Local/Unique / Claims / Patient Record / Patient Survey / Provider Safety Survey
Albany, NY / 3 / 0 / 2 / 1 / 0 (0) / 3 (2) / 3 (2) / 2 (2) / 0(0) / 0(0) / 9 / 1 / 5 / 3 / 4 (3) / 6 (4) / 8(6) / 6(4) / 2(2) / 4 (1)
Cincinnati, OH * / 6 / 1 / 0 / 5 / 3 (1) / 5 (0) / 3 (1) / 3(0) / 1(0) / 0(0) / 11 / 4 / 2 / 5 / 6 (6) / 5 (0) / 10(5) / 5(3) / 0(0) / 7 (2)
Cleveland, OH * / 4 / 1 / 0 / 3 / 2 (1) / 3 (0) / 2(0) / 3 (1) / 1(0) / 0(0) / 8 / 2 / 2 / 4 / 4 (4) / 4(0) / 7(3) / 3(2) / 0(0) / 6 (2)
Colorado / 6 / 2 / 0 / 4 / 4 (2) / 4 (0) / 2(0) / 4 (1) / 2 (1) / 0(0) / 7 / 2 / 0 / 5 / 2 (2) / 4 (0) / 7(2) / 1(0) / 0(0) / 6 (1)
Detroit, MI * / 6 / 1 / 0 / 5 / 2 (0) / 5 (1) / 5 (1) / 2(0) / 0(0) / 0(0) / 8 / 3 / 0 / 5 / 3(2) / 7(3) / 7(3) / 2(2) / 1(1) / 5 (1)
Humboldt County, CA * / 9 / 2 / 2 / 5 / 3 (1) / 9 (4) / 6 (3) / 4 (1) / 5 (3) / 1 (1) / 9 / 1 / 3 / 5 / 1(1) / 9 (4) / 9(4) / 2(1) / 1(1) / 5 (0)
Kansas City, MO * / 5 / 1 / 0 / 4 / 3 (1) / 4 (0) / 2(0) / 3(0) / 2 (1) / 0(0) / 6 / 1 / 0 / 5 / 1(1) / 5(0) / 6(1) / 2(1) / 0(0) / 5 (0)
Kings County, CA / 8 / 2 / 2 / 4 / 2 (1) / 8 (4) / 6 (3) / 3 (1) / 4 (3) / 1 (1) / 8 / 1 / 3 / 4 / 1(1) / 8(4) / 8(4) / 2(1) / 1(1) / 4 (0)
Lehigh County, PA / 3 / 0 / 1 / 2 / 1 (0) / 3 (1) / 3(1) / 3 (2) / 0(0) / 0(0) / 7 / 1 / 3 / 3 / 1(1) / 7(4) / 7(4) / 2(1) / 2(1) / 2 (0)
Maine * / 5 / 1 / 0 / 4 / 3 (1) / 3 (0) / 4(0) / 3 (1) / 0(0) / 0(0) / 8 / 1 / 1 / 6 / 2(1) / 7(2) / 8(2) / 2(2) / 2(1) / 5 (1)
Memphis, TN * / 6 / 2 / 0 / 4 / 4 (2) / 4 (0) / 3 (1) / 2(0) / 2 (1) / 1(0) / 5 / 1 / 0 / 4 / 1(1) / 4(0) / 4(0) / 1(0) / 0(0) / 4 (1)
Minnesota * / 9 / 4 / 0 / 5 / 5 (3) / 7 (2) / 5 (3) / 5 (3) / 4(2) / 1(0) / 12 / 2 / 1 / 9 / 3(1) / 11(3) / 10(2) / 2(1) / 2(1) / 8 (1)
Nashville, TN / 4 / 0 / 0 / 4 / 2 (0) / 3 (0) / 2(0) / 2(0) / 1(0) / 1(0) / 5 / 1 / 0 / 4 / 1(1) / 4(0) / 4(2) / 1(0) / 0(0) / 4 (1)
New Hampshire / 4 / 0 / 0 / 4 / 2 (0) / 2 (0) / 4(0) / 2(0) / 0(0) / 0(0) / 8 / 2 / 0 / 6 / 2(1) / 6(1) / 8(2) / 2(1) / 1(0) / 4 (0)
Pittsburgh, PA / 4 / 0 / 1 / 3 / 1 (0) / 4 (1) / 3(1) / 3 (2) / 0(0) / 0(0) / 8 / 1 / 3 / 4 / 1(1) / 8(4) / 8(4) / 2(1) / 2(1) / 3 (0)
Puget Sound, WA * / 4 / 1 / 0 / 3 / 0 (0) / 4 (1) / 4 (1) / 1(0) / 1(0) / 0(0) / 6 / 2 / 0 / 4 / 3(1) / 5(2) / 5(2) / 2(2) / 2(2) / 4 (1)
South Central, PA * / 4 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 1 (0) / 4 (2) / 3(1) / 3 (2) / 0(0) / 0(0) / 7 / 1 / 3 / 3 / 1(1) / 7(4) / 7(4) / 2(1) / 2(1) / 2 (0)
West Michigan * / 4 / 0 / 0 / 4 / 2 0) / 3 (0) / 3(0) / 2(0) / 0(0) / 0(0) / 6 / 2 / 0 / 4 / 2(1) / 6(2) / 6(2) / 1(1) / 0(0) / 2 (0)
Western New York * / 3 / 0 / 2 / 1 / 0 (0) / 3 (2) / 3 (2) / 2 (2) / 0(0) / 0(0) / 7 / 1 / 5 / 1 / 3(3) / 5(4) / 7(6) / 4(4) / 2(2) / 2 (1)
Willamette Valley, OR * / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 (0) / 1 (0) / 1(0) / 0(0) / 0(0) / 0(0) / 7 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 4(3) / 4(2) / 7(5) / 3(3) / 2(2) / 1 (0)
Wisconsin * / 5 / 2 / 0 / 3 / 3 (1) / 4 (1) / 3 (1) / 3 (1) / 0(0) / 0(0) / 9 / 4 / 0 / 5 / 3(2) / 6(2) / 9(4) / 4(3) / 3(2) / 7 (2)
Mean / 4.9 / 1.0 / 0.5 / 3.4 / 2.0 (0.7) / 4.1 (1.0) / 3.3 (1.0) / 2.6 (0.9) / 1.1 (0.5) / 0.2 (0.1) / 7.7 / 1.8 / 1.6 / 4.3 / 2.3 (1.8) / 6.1 (2.1) / 7.2 (3.2) / 2.4 (1.6) / 1.2 (0.9) / 4.3 (0.7)
Note: Entries in table are number of reports and results are presented for reports by all sponsors and, in parenthesis, reports by state and local sponsors.
*Designates AF4Q area
†Type of organization acting as primary sponsor of provider quality report. Local sponsors include business coalitions, hospital associations, and local health care quality organizations. State reports include Departments of Health or other State funded organizations, such as PHC4 in Pennsylvania and the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development in California. Health plan reports include local, regional, and national health plans.
‡National measure source includes all reports utilizing nationally endorsed measure sets, such as CMS Hospital Compare measures. Local/Unique measures include measures developed or modified by the reporting entity or a local health care quality organization in consultation with local physician and hospital leaders. Unique measures include those developed by health plans for their members. Reports may use a combination of national and local/unique measures.
§Type of data used in quality measure construction. Claims data includes health plan billing data and other administrative data such as hospital discharge data provided to CMS. Patient record data includes data obtained directly from medical records; claims data may be used to identify patients for medical record review. Patient survey data are data obtained from a survey provided to patients such as CAHPS or locally/nationally sponsored surveys. Provider Supplied/Safety Survey data are data obtained from surveys completed voluntarily by providers such as Leapfrog or health information technology readiness surveys.
Table 3: Applicability of Quality Reports
Community / Reports with Physician Quality Measures / Reports with Hospital Quality MeasuresTotal / Type of Measures† / Level of Measure Construction‡ / Type of Physician Included in Report§ / Total / Type of Measures†
Care Process/Out-come / Patient Experience / Cost / Efficiency / Practice/
Group / Individual / Primary Care / Specialist / Care Process/Out-come / Patient Experience / Cost / Efficiency
Albany, NY / 3 / 3 (2) / 0 (0) / 0 (0) / 1 (0) / 0 (0) / 3 (2) / 1 (0) / 3 (2) / 9 / 9 (6) / 2(2) / 0 (0) / 1 (0)
Cincinnati, OH * / 6 / 5 (1) / 1 (0) / 2 (0) / 2 (0) / 4 (1) / 2 (0) / 6 (1) / 3 (0) / 11 / 10 (5) / 0(0) / 3 (1) / 1 (0)
Cleveland, OH * / 4 / 4 (1) / 0 (0) / 1 (0) / 2 (0) / 3 (1) / 1 (0) / 4 (1) / 3 (0) / 8 / 7 (3) / 0(0) / 3 (1) / 1 (0)
Colorado / 6 / 5 (1) / 0 (1) / 2 (0) / 2 (0) / 3 (0) / 3 (2) / 6 (2) / 4 (1) / 7 / 7 (2) / 0(0) / 3 (0) / 1 (0)
Detroit, MI * / 6 / 6 (1) / 0 (0) / 3 (0) / 1 (0) / 4 (1) / 2 (0) / 6 (1) / 2 (0) / 8 / 8 (3) / 1(1) / 4 (2) / 1 (0)
Humboldt County, CA * / 9 / 8 (3) / 4 (3) / 2 (0) / 2 (0) / 7 (3) / 2 (1) / 8 (3) / 4 (1) / 9 / 9 (4) / 1(1) / 3 (0) / 1 (0)
Kansas City, MO * / 5 / 4 (0) / 1 (1) / 2 (0) / 2 (0) / 3 (0) / 2 (1) / 5 (1) / 3 (0) / 6 / 6 (1) / 0(0) / 2 (0) / 1 (0)
Kings County, CA / 8 / 7 (3) / 4 (3) / 2 (0) / 1 (0) / 6 (3) / 2 (1) / 7 (3) / 3 (1) / 8 / 8 (4) / 1(1) / 2 (0) / 1 (0)
Lehigh County, PA / 3 / 3 (1) / 0 (0) / 0 (0) / 2 (0) / 1 (0) / 2 (1) / 2 (0) / 3 (1) / 7 / 7 (4) / 2(1) / 2 (0) / 1 (0)
Maine * / 5 / 5 (1) / 0 (0) / 1 (0) / 2 (0) / 4 (1) / 1 (0) / 5 (1) / 3 (0) / 8 / 8 (2) / 2(1) / 3 (0) / 1 (0)
Memphis, TN * / 6 / 5 (1) / 1 (1) / 2 (0) / 2 (0) / 3 (1) / 3 (1) / 6 (2) / 4 (1) / 5 / 5 (1) / 0(0) / 1 (0) / 1 (0)
Minnesota * / 9 / 7 (2) / 2 (2) / 3 (1) / 2 (0) / 8 (4) / 1 (0) / 9 (4) / 5 (3) / 12 / 11 (2) / 2(1) / 5 (1) / 1 (0)
Nashville, TN / 4 / 4 (0) / 0 (0) / 2 (0) / 2 (0) / 2 (0) / 2 (0) / 4 (0) / 3 (0) / 5 / 5 (0) / 0(0) / 1 (0) / 1 (0)
New Hampshire / 4 / 4 (0) / 0 (0) / 1 (0) / 2 (0) / 3 (0) / 1 (0) / 4 (0) / 3 (0) / 8 / 8 (2) / 1(0) / 4 (1) / 1 (0)
Pittsburgh, PA / 4 / 4 (1) / 0 (0) / 1 (0) / 2 (0) / 2 (0) / 2 (1) / 3 (0) / 4 (1) / 8 / 8 (4) / 2(1) / 3 (0) / 1 (0)
Puget Sound, WA * / 4 / 4 (1) / 1 (0) / 1 (0) / 1 (0) / 3 (1) / 1 (0) / 4 (1) / 2 (0) / 6 / 5 (2) / 2(2) / 2 (1) / 1 (0)
South Central, PA * / 4 / 4 (2) / 0 (0) / 0 (0) / 2 (0) / 2 (1) / 2 (1) / 3 (1) / 3 (1) / 7 / 7 (4) / 2(1) / 2 (0) / 1 (0)
West Michigan * / 4 / 4 (0) / 0 (0) / 2 (0) / 1 (0) / 1 (0) / 3 (0) / 4 (0) / 1 (0) / 6 / 6 (2) / 0(0) / 2 (1) / 1 (0)
Western New York * / 3 / 3 (2) / 0 (0) / 0 (0) / 1 (0) / 0 (0) / 3 (2) / 1 (0) / 3 (2) / 7 / 7 (6) / 2(2) / 0 (0) / 1 (0)
Willamette Valley, OR * / 1 / 1 (0) / 0 (0) / 0 (0) / 1 (0) / 0 (0) / 1 (0) / 1 (0) / 1 (0) / 7 / 5 (3) / 2(2) / 3 (3) / 1 (0)
Wisconsin * / 5 / 4 (1) / 0 (0) / 2 (1) / 2 (0) / 3 (1) / 2 (1) / 4 (1) / 3 (1) / 9 / 8 (3) / 3(2) / 4 (3) / 1 (0)
Mean / 4.9 / 4.5 (1.1) / 0.7 (0.5) / 1.4 (0.1) / 1.7 (0) / 3.0 (0.9) / 2.0 (0.7) / 4.4 (1.0) / 3.0 (0.7) / 7.7 / 7.3 (3.0) / 1.2 (0.9) / 2.5 (0.7) / 1.0 (0)
Note: Entries in table are number of reports and results are presented for reports by all sponsors and, in parenthesis, reports by state and local sponsors.
*Designates AF4Q area
†Types of measures included in provider quality report. Process and outcome measures include care process or outcomes (i.e. lab results) related to inpatient or ambulatory care whether constructed with claims or medical record data. Patient experience measures include measures related to a patient’s satisfaction with care. Cost measures include measures related to the cost of a procedure. Efficiency measures include measures that take into consideration a weighting of cost based on risk or are constructed based on quality and cost measures. Efficiency measures are primarily provided by national health plans and combine cost and quality measures.
‡Quality scores for “Physicians” are provided to consumers at the individual physician or group/clinic level. The total can add to more than total number of reports.
§Quality measures in physician quality reports for primary care physicians, specialist, or both. Specialist reports primarily include national health plan reports, reports focusing on cardiac surgery, and the Consumer Checkbook report in Memphis.
Table 4: Chronic Illness Prevalence and Average Number of Measures: Reports on Physician Performance
Community / Diabetes†,¶ / Asthma†,¶ / Depression ¶, # / Hypertension†,¶ / Heart Disease†,¶Disease Prevalence / Average # of Measures / Disease Prevalence / Average # of Measures / Disease Prevalence / Average # of Measures / Disease Prevalence / Average # of Measures / Disease Prevalence / Average # of Measures
Albany, NY ‡ / 8.2 / 0 (0) / 14.0 / 0 (0) / 7.1 / 0 (0) / 27.2 / 0 (0) / 4.0 / 2(3)
Cincinnati, OH * / 8.8 / 1 (4) / 12.0 / 0 (0) / 8.2 / 0 (0) / 26.4 / 0 (0) / 3.7 / 0.4 (1)
Cleveland, OH * § / 9.0 / 2.5(9) / 13.3 / 0 (0) / 8.2 / 0 (0) / 28.4 / 0 (0) / 4.6 / 0.25(0)
Colorado ‡ / 5.3 / 0.4 (1) / 12.9 / 0 (0) / 8.2 / 0 (0) / 21.1 / 0 (0) / 2.6 / 0.4 (1)
Detroit, MI * / 10.6 / 1(5) / 16.4 / 0.7(2) / 8.2 / 0.3 (0) / 30.7 / 0 (0) / 4.6 / 0.7(2)
Humboldt County, CA * ‡ / 8.2 / 2(5) / 12.7 / 0.4(1) / 6.1 / 0 (0) / 25.7 / 0 (0) / 3.0 / 1(1.7)
Kansas City, MO * / 7.5 / 0.25 (0) / 12.0 / 0 (0) / 8.7 / 0 (0) / 25.7 / 0 (0) / 3.7 / 0.25(0)
Kings County, CA ‡ / 8.2 / 2.3 (5) / 12.7 / 0.4(1) / 6.1 / 0 (0) / 25.7 / 0 (0) / 3.0 / 1.1(1.7)
Lehigh County, PA ‡ / 8.7 / 0 (0) / 13.0 / 0 (0) / 6.5 / 0 (0) / 28.1 / 0 (0) / 5.4 / 1(3)
Maine * ‡ / 7.8 / 1.5 (1) / 15.2 / 0.25(0) / 8.8 / 0.25 (0) / 28.7 / 0 (0) / 5.2 / 0.5(1)
Memphis, TN * ‖ / 11.7 / 0.4 (2) / 9.6 / 0 (0) / 8.8 / 0 (0) / 35.2 / 0 (0) / 2.0 / 0.2 (1)
Minnesota * ‡ / 5.7 / 1.9(3) / 10.9 / 0.6(1) / 7.1 / 0.9 (1) / 21.4 / 0.3 (1) / 3.6 / 1.1 (2.5)
Nashville, TN / 9.0 / 0 (0) / 13.0 / 0 (0) / 8.8 / 0 (0) / 27.9 / 0 (0) / 3.1 / 0 (0)
New Hampshire ‡ / 7.2 / 1.25 (0) / 15.0 / 0.25(0) / 8.5 / 0.25 (0) / 26.3 / 0 (0) / 4.3 / 0.25 (0)
Pittsburgh, PA / 8.4 / 0 (0) / 12.1 / 0 (0) / 6.5 / 0 (0) / 27.4 / 0 (0) / 4.9 / 1 (3)
Puget Sound, WA * / 6.3 / 2 (4) / 14.4 / 0.5(1) / 7.0 / 0.5 (2) / 22.9 / 0 (0) / 3.0 / 1.25 (3)
South Central, PA * ‡ / 8.7 / 1.75 (3.5) / 13.0 / 0 (0) / 6.5 / 0 (0) / 28.1 / 0 (0) / 5.4 / 0.75 (1.5)
West Michigan * / 6.5 / 0.75 (0) / 14.5 / 0.75(0) / 8.2 / 0 (0) / 25.6 / 0 (0) / 3.2 / 0.25 (0)
Western New York * / 10.8 / 0 (0) / 12.5 / 0 (0) / 7.1 / 0 (0) / 32.2 / 0 (0) / 3.7 / 2 (3)
Willamette Valley, OR * ‡ / 6.9 / 0 (0) / 15.8 / 0 (0) / 7.8 / 0 (0) / 26.5 / 0 (0) / 3.5 / 0 (0)
Wisconsin * ‡ / 6.5 / 1.5 (6) / 13.2 / 0 (0) / 8.0 / 0 (0) / 26.3 / 0.25 (1) / 3.7 / 0.5 (2)
Mean / 8.1 / 1 (2.3) / 13.25 / 0.2 (0.3) / 7.6 / 0.1 (0.1) / 27.0 / 0 (0.1) / 3.8 / 0.7 (1.4)
Note: Under “Average # of Measures,” results are presented for reports by all sponsors and, in parenthesis, reports by state and local sponsors.
*Designates AF4Q area
†Disease prevalence source (excluding depression) is 2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data. The Metropolitan/Micropolitan Area (MMSA) is used unless noted otherwise (see footnotes ‡, §, and ‖).
‡Based on BRFSS data at the state level
§ Based on BRFSS data at the county level (Cuyahoga County in Ohio)
‖Based on BRFSS data at the county level (Shelby County in Tennessee)
¶Average number of quality measures in physician reports addressing treatment for the condition (the denominator for the average number of measures is the total number of reports in each community that contain care process/outcome measures). Where a quality report provides consumers with one composite score(s) and a consumer can access the component measures of the composite, all measures included in the composite are counted. For organizations that report only an overall composite designation that covers a variety of conditions, the measure is not counted under the average number of measures for a specific chronic condition. For organizations that report a composite at a disease specific level, that measure is counted as “1” under the specific condition and is used in the average measure calculation.
#Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Statistics, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2005-2006 (state-level data)
Table 5: Applicability of Hospital Quality Reports
Community / Total / Number of Reports with General Quality Measures§ / Number of Reports with Specific Quality MeasuresPatient Safety† / Patient Experience2‡ / Length of Stay§ / Volume§ / Complications§ / Mortality§ / Surgical Infection§ / Obstetrics / Knee/Hip Replacement / Pneumonia / Heart Failure / Heart Attack / Coronary Artery Bypass Graft / Other Cardiac
Albany, NY / 9 / 4 (1) / 2(2) / 1 (0) / 4 (4) / 6 (2) / 6 (2) / 4 (3) / 2 (1) / 0 (0) / 3 (2) / 3 (3) / 3 (3) / 2 (2) / 2 (2)
Cincinnati, OH * / 11 / 7 (2) / 0(0) / 5 (1) / 7 (2) / 2 (2) / 6 (1) / 4 (3) / 2 (0) / 1 (1) / 5 (4) / 5 (4) / 5 (4) / 1 (1) / 1 (1)
Cleveland, OH * / 8 / 6 (2) / 0(0) / 3 (0) / 6 (2) / 2 (2) / 4 (0) / 2 (1) / 2 (0) / 1 (1) / 3 (2) / 3 (2) / 3 (2) / 1 (1) / 1 (1)
Colorado / 7 / 6 (1) / 0(0) / 5 (1) / 7 (2) / 2 (2) / 7 (2) / 2 (1) / 2 (0) / 0 (0) / 2 (1) / 2 (1) / 3 (1) / 0 (0) / 0 (0)
Detroit, MI * / 8 / 5 (1) / 1(1) / 3 (0) / 4 (0) / 0 (0) / 4 (0) / 2 (2) / 2 (1) / 0 (0) / 2 (2) / 2 (2) / 2 (2) / 0 (0) / 2 (2)
Humboldt County, CA * / 9 / 5 (0) / 1(1) / 4 (0) / 6 (1) / 3 (1) / 8 (1) / 2 (1) / 3 (1) / 1 (1) / 3 (2) / 3 (2) / 3 (2) / 2 (2) / 1 (1)
Kansas City, MO * / 6 / 5 (0) / 0(0) / 4 (0) / 5 (0) / 0 (0) / 5 (0) / 2 (0) / 2 (0) / 0 (0) / 2 (1) / 2 (1) / 2 (1) / 0 (0) / 0 (0)
Kings County, CA / 8 / 4 (0) / 1(1) / 3 (0) / 5 (1) / 3 (1) / 7 (1) / 1 (1) / 2 (1) / 1 (1) / 2 (2) / 2 (2) / 2 (2) / 2 (2) / 1 (1)
Lehigh County, PA / 7 / 2 (0) / 2(1) / 3 (1) / 4 (1) / 2 (1) / 4 (1) / 3 (2) / 2 (0) / 0 (0) / 3 (1) / 3 (1) / 3 (1) / 1 (1) / 0 (0)
Maine * / 8 / 5 (1) / 2(1) / 4 (0) / 5 (0) / 0 (0) / 5 (0) / 4 (2) / 2 (0) / 0 (0) / 4 (2) / 4 (2) / 4 (2) / 0 (0) / 0 (0)
Memphis, TN * / 5 / 4 (1) / 0(0) / 3 (0) / 4 (0) / 1 (0) / 4 (0) / 1 (0) / 2 (0) / 0 (0) / 1 (0) / 1 (0) / 1 (0) / 0 (0) / 0 (0)
Minnesota * / 12 / 8 (1) / 2(1) / 6 (1) / 8 (0) / 1 (0) / 6 (0) / 2 (1) / 2 (0) / 0 (0) / 2 (1) / 2 (1) / 2 (1) / 0 (0) / 0 (0)
Nashville, TN / 5 / 4 (1) / 0(0) / 3 (0) / 4 (0) / 1 (0) / 4 (0) / 1 (0) / 2 (0) / 0 (0) / 1 (0) / 1 (0) / 1 (0) / 0 (0) / 0 (0)
New Hampshire / 8 / 4 (0) / 1(0) / 5 (1) / 5 (0) / 0 (0) / 5 (0) / 3 (1) / 2 (0) / 0 (0) / 3 (1) / 3 (1) / 3 (1) / 0 (0) / 0 (0)
Pittsburgh, PA / 8 / 3 (0) / 2(1) / 4 (1) / 5 (1) / 2 (1) / 5 (1) / 3 (2) / 2 (0) / 0 (0) / 3 (1) / 3 (1) / 3 (1) / 1 (1) / 0 (0)
Puget Sound, WA * / 6 / 4 (1) / 2(2) / 1 (0) / 3 (0) / 1 (1) / 3 (0) / 3 (2) / 1 (0) / 0 (0) / 3 (2) / 3 (2) / 3 (2) / 0 (0) / 0 (0)
South Central, PA * / 7 / 2 (0) / 2(1) / 3 (1) / 4 (1) / 2 (1) / 4 (1) / 3 (2) / 2 (0) / 0 (0) / 3 (1) / 3 (1) / 3 (1) / 1 (1) / 0 (0)
West Michigan * / 6 / 2 (0) / 0(0) / 2 (0) / 3 (0) / 0 (0) / 3 (0) / 2 (1) / 2 (0) / 0 (0) / 2 (1) / 2 (1) / 2 (1) / 0 (0) / 2 (1)
Western New York * / 7 / 2 (1) / 2(2) / 0 (0) / 4 (4) / 5 (2) / 5 (2) / 3 (3) / 2 (1) / 0 (0) / 2 (2) / 2 (2) / 2 (2) / 2 (2) / 2 (2)
Willamette Valley, OR * / 7 / 1 (0) / 2(2) / 1 (1) / 1 (0) / 0 (0) / 1 (0) / 3 (3) / 1 (0) / 0 (0) / 3 (3) / 3 (3) / 3 (3) / 0 (0) / 0 (0)
Wisconsin * / 9 / 7 (2) / 3(2) / 4 (1) / 5 (1) / 1 (1) / 5 (1) / 2 (1) / 5 (3) / 2 (2) / 3 (2) / 3 (2) / 3 (2) / 1 (1) / 2 (1)
Mean / 7.7 / 4.3 (0.7) / 1.2 (0.9) / 3.2 (0.4) / 4.7 (1.0) / 1.6 (0.8) / 4.8 (0.6) / 2.5 (1.5) / 2.1 (0.4) / 0.3 (0.3) / 2.6 (1.6) / 2.6 (1.6) / 2.7 (1.6) / 0.7 (0.7) / 0.7 (0.6)
Note: Entries in table are number of reports and results are presented for reports by all sponsors and, in parenthesis, reports by state and local sponsors.
*Designates AF4Q area
† Reports including patient safety measures, such as Leapfrog scores
‡ Reports including patient experience survey results, such as HCAHPS
§Reports including quality measures applicable to 10 or more categories of inpatient procedures.
1