“If you want to get sick, go to the hospital.”
It’s a known fact that with all the diseases that travel around most hospitals, a prolonged stay is literally increasing your chance of death.
But what if you have no choice and have to go to the hospital?
Reuters has created an Interactive Map of USA’s Top 100 Hospitals which perhaps means your chances of death decrease if you are admitted to one of these. http://www.reuters.com/article/interactive/idUSTRE72R21L20110328?view=large&type=newsOne
Heres the article that goes with it: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/28/us-top-100-hospitals-idUSTRE72R21L20110328?view=large
What determines the ratings?
Turns out the rating criteria had more to do with the duration of the patients stay, the shorter the better (which kind of proves my point about hospital diseases… in a way). After all, cleanliness costs too much. There’s other factors too involved which is why you should go over there and check out the whole article.
But is this rating system accurate? Seems like any hospital can win an award, such the case with our local hospital (which shall remain nameless) for keeping down infection back on 2008. I don’t see how that was possible- the smell was disgusting and many people developed pneumonia there including my father and a few of my friends. Perhaps if they would have just released patients earlier, they could have made this years top 100?
I’ve been in hospitals such as Sloan Kettering and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital that feature multi-million dollar air purification systems, yet these two world class facilities didn’t make the cut?
Not for nothin’ (as we sayin New Jersey), where would you rather be admitted if you were seriously ill- in New York or say, some little local hospital that made the cut?