Scoring Dimensions - Version 0.1

Five dimensions. One composite.

SilverScore does not reduce facility quality to a single number. A single composite suffers from aggregation loss, hiding the variance structure that institutional buyers need to see.

The rating family consists of four dimension-level scores covering clinical outcomes, operations, workforce, and reputation, plus a top-level composite for summary use cases. This structure mirrors the evolution of FICO from a single number to a family of industry-tuned scores, and is scientifically justified because each dimension has a distinct improvement pathway.


Dimension 01

Clinical Quality

Outcomes that reflect the care delivered.

Factors
  • Hospitalization rates (all-cause and avoidable), rolling 12-month window
  • 30-day readmission patterns following facility transfers
  • Emergency transport frequency and distribution by reason
  • Fall rates (with and without injury), trend over 18 months
  • Wound and pressure injury incidence
  • Medication error signals from regulatory and voluntary reporting
Adjustment

Risk-adjusted for resident acuity mix (dementia severity, functional status, chronic condition burden) using published crosswalks from public data where available.

Dimension 02

Operational Excellence

The signals that separate well-run buildings from barely-running ones.

Factors
  • Occupancy trajectory (12 and 36 month windows, noise-filtered)
  • Length of stay by care level, relative to peer benchmark
  • Move-out reason distribution (planned vs care-failure vs financial)
  • Care level progression patterns and timing
  • Census stability through seasonal and market variation
Adjustment

Peer-benchmarked against comparable facility size, care mix, and market conditions. Adjustment methodology published alongside the rating.

Dimension 03

Staffing Adequacy

Staff-to-resident ratios and coverage are the strongest available leading indicator of quality.

Factors
  • Total staffing hours per resident day (CMS PBJ-derived)
  • Registered Nurse coverage hours per resident day
  • Occupancy pressure relative to staffing baseline
  • CMS staffing star rating (4-5 indicates adequate; 1-2 flags inadequate)
  • Roadmap: turnover by role, consistency of assignment, training completion, and wage percentile enter the methodology when PBJ payroll-level integration lands.
Adjustment

Segmented by facility scale and CMS rating peer cohort. Today the dimension rewards adequate ratios + coverage; the future expansion adds tenure and turnover signals.

Dimension 04

Reputation & Satisfaction

Normalized, noise-corrected signals from the people who use the facility.

Factors
  • Family sentiment from partner satisfaction surveys (where data partnerships exist)
  • Resident-reported quality signals
  • Consumer review data, weighted for recency and volume, noise-filtered for manipulation
  • Complaint records from state regulators and ombudsman offices
  • Regulatory action history and resolution
Adjustment

Review data is weighted inversely to its susceptibility to manipulation. Survey data with transparent methodology weighs heavier than open-platform reviews.

Dimension 05

Composite SilverScore

The summary signal. Built from the sub-scores with published weighting.

Factors
  • Weighted combination of the four dimension scores
  • Published weighting scheme, versioned and council-reviewed
  • Confidence band reflecting data completeness across contributing dimensions
  • Trend indicator showing 12-month trajectory
Adjustment

The composite is designed for quick-reference use (discharge routing, consumer lookup, portfolio summary). Institutional buyers making high-stakes decisions should use the dimension-level scores directly.


Exact weightings, risk-adjustment parameters, and cut-points are maintained by the methodology team under advisory council oversight. The weighting scheme is published at each quarterly release and changes are logged in the methodology version archive.

Return to methodology principles