Orthopedic Surgical Table
Designed with advanced controls and unrestricted access to the operative site,
the Steris OT 1000
Surgical Table maximizes operational
efficiency while maintaining patient and
-- Simple position-
ing with repeatable
accuracy for a wide
range of patients from
pediatric patients to
adults up to seven
-- Precise con-
trol for technicians
within the ortho surgical table
-- Improved patient airway access for anesthesia provider through articulat-
-- Easy access to patient with unobstructed foot clearance and powered
table articulations for clinicians
No recent internet headline or cleverly-word- ed web teaser caused me to click my com- puter mouse on it faster than one that linked
to a video discussing a Consumer Reports study on
Strangely enough, it wasn’t the subject matter that
grabbed my attention. It was the tone of the headline:
“Hospitals Get Low Safety Scores In New Study.”
The subjects in the video discussed a piece
released by Consumer Reports that looked at
more than 2,000 hospitals with an eye on hospi-
tal-acquired infections, re-admission rates, lack
of communication around medications and discharges, the overuse of CT
scans, and rate of complications. On a scale of 0-100, the average score
came out to be 49, the highest score was 74, and the lowest score was 14.
To make matters worse, almost two-thirds of the nation’s 258 teaching hos-
pitals that report enough data for Consumer Reports to calculate a safety
score ranked below average.
The grand takeaway?
“Hospitals are a dangerous place to be,” noted Dr. John Santa, the director
of Consumer Reports’ Health Ratings Center in a recent appearance on CBS
My takeaway, however, was different. The video left me pondering a
number of questions. But more than anything, I wondered how Consumer
Reports got its information, about the methodology behind the study, and
how different aspects of safety were weighted in the final score for each facility.
It only two a few more clicks of the computer mouse to find some answers.
The ratings are more or less the numerical reflection of information on the
following aspects: safety, patient outcome, patient experience, and hospital
practices. The last factor includes two separate measures. These are the use of
electronic health records and the appropriate use of scanning.
Some of this comes from billing information and other administrative data
submitted by hospitals to Medicare. Information on infections is reported by
individual states, and that data comes from “a somewhat different set of inten-
sive care units and surgical procedures, and different time periods.”
Perhaps what’s most interesting about the data collection is how Consumer
Reports describes its limitations: “Unlike most other Consumer Reports
Ratings, we don't collect the data in our Hospital Ratings ourselves, so there
may be issues with quality we can't control,” its website says.
There’s no question hospital safety was, is, and will be a critical issue to
every entity associated with the healthcare industry. While a study like this is
a helpful reminder of that fact, it fails to offer much of anything else of value
because there is no telling how much issues with consistency and quality of
data affect the ratings. As a result, it leaves its audience with more questions