I have never used Beaumont, but my parents have. It is a perfectly good hospital [[although no one I know of thinks it is the best in the country) but it suffers from the usual problem of hospitals that basically have an unrelated bunch of physicians working adjacently but not together. My parents have used that hospital because it is where some of their doctors practice.
The care didn't seem very well coordinated. There didn't appear to be adequate communication between doctors on a case, and they don't necessarily seem to pay much attention to an individual patients needs. My sister who is a hospital social worker [[at another hospital) had to keep checking on them to make sure they were being cared for appropriately.
Second, there is endless log-rolling, with doctors calling in other doctors for seemingly pointless consultations, apparently with the intent of increasing the number of billable incidents. This annoys the patients, who have no idea who all these people are, or why they are there, and they didn't really seem to have the time to figure out what the situation actually was. Patients would be more annoyed if they actually had to pay the bills--in fact it did annoy my mother quite a lot on behalf of Medicare and the taxpayers of America.
I am not saying that makes it a bad hospital. It is not. It is a kind of typical hospital in those respects. My mother had a great doctor there for her hip replacement, and has had an excellent result. However I have to say that in my opinion you really have to credit the surgeon more than the hospital.
The reason HFHS is likely to outperform Beaumont is not that they have better doctors; for all I know they have worse doctors. It is because their model of managing a health practice is superior, and a good team has a lot of advantages over a bunch of even great individuals. And in most cases good health care delivery is a matter of consistency rather than spectacular performance.
Bookmarks