Julie Balch Samora1, Scott D Lifchez2, Philip E Blazar3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, MD. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. Electronic address: pblazar@partners.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand the ethical and professional implications of physician behavior changes secondary to online physician-rating Web sites (PRWs). METHODS: The American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) Ethics and Professionalism Committee surveyed the ASSH membership regarding PRWs. We sent a 14-item questionnaire to 2,664 active ASSH members who practice in both private and academic settings in the United States. RESULTS: We received 312 responses, a 12% response incidence. More than 65% of the respondents had a slightly or highly unfavorable impression of these Web sites. Only 34% of respondents had ever updated or created a profile for PRWs, although 62% had observed inaccuracies in their profile. Almost 90% of respondents had not made any changes in their practice owing to comments or reviews. One-third of respondents had solicited favorable reviews from patients, and 3% of respondents have paid to improve their ratings. CONCLUSIONS: PRWs are going to become more prevalent, and more research is needed to fully understand the implications. There are several ethical implications that PRWs pose to practicing physicians. We contend that it is morally unsound to pay for good reviews. The recourse for physicians when an inaccurate and potentially libelous review has been written is unclear. Some physicians have required patients to sign a waiver preventing them from posting negative comments online. We propose the development of a task force to assess the professional, ethical, and legal implications of PRWs, including working with companies to improve accuracy of information, oversight, and feedback opportunities. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It is expected that PRWs will play an increasing role in the future; it is unclear whether there will be a uniform reporting system, or whether these online ratings will influence referral patterns and/or quality improvement.
PURPOSE: To understand the ethical and professional implications of physician behavior changes secondary to online physician-rating Web sites (PRWs). METHODS: The American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) Ethics and Professionalism Committee surveyed the ASSH membership regarding PRWs. We sent a 14-item questionnaire to 2,664 active ASSH members who practice in both private and academic settings in the United States. RESULTS: We received 312 responses, a 12% response incidence. More than 65% of the respondents had a slightly or highly unfavorable impression of these Web sites. Only 34% of respondents had ever updated or created a profile for PRWs, although 62% had observed inaccuracies in their profile. Almost 90% of respondents had not made any changes in their practice owing to comments or reviews. One-third of respondents had solicited favorable reviews from patients, and 3% of respondents have paid to improve their ratings. CONCLUSIONS: PRWs are going to become more prevalent, and more research is needed to fully understand the implications. There are several ethical implications that PRWs pose to practicing physicians. We contend that it is morally unsound to pay for good reviews. The recourse for physicians when an inaccurate and potentially libelous review has been written is unclear. Some physicians have required patients to sign a waiver preventing them from posting negative comments online. We propose the development of a task force to assess the professional, ethical, and legal implications of PRWs, including working with companies to improve accuracy of information, oversight, and feedback opportunities. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It is expected that PRWs will play an increasing role in the future; it is unclear whether there will be a uniform reporting system, or whether these online ratings will influence referral patterns and/or quality improvement.
Authors: Gregory P Murphy; Mohannad A Awad; E Charles Osterberg; Thomas W Gaither; Thanabhudee Chumnarnsongkhroh; Samuel L Washington; Benjamin N Breyer Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Andrew J Sama; David P Matichak; Nicholas C Schiller; Deborah J Li; Chester J Donnally; Dhanur Damodar; Brian J Cole Journal: J Clin Orthop Trauma Date: 2021-07-14