Take 1,000 random patients who were rushed to hospitals in the suffering from heart attacks. Calculate which portion of them survived the emergency room visit, then figure out how long they lived (on average) after they were released from the hospital.
Do the same thing for car accident victims, cancer patients, pneumonia patients, premature babies, victims of mining accidents, etc. It isn't perfect, but I think it's a far better method of assessing quality of care than using simple measures of life expectancy and infant mortality.
Your suggestion is good.
It's tough to find this instantly compiled.
I did see a five post-treatment cancer survival rate study comparison of Europe. The highest was France, with about 58% (the lowest was Poland, without about 25%). The American figures in that particular article were a bit higher than France, in the 62-63% range. I didn't delve into the study, since I was just trying to get an impressionistic look.
I didn't see anything readily compiled on heart attacks, etc.
I would like to see that.
I think you are right: that would be a good, although not perfect, indicator of quality of care in certain specialties.
I don't know that I would make much of a few percentage differences in a report like that, but I definitely would not want to get cancer in Poland.