Samir K Trehan1, Christopher J DeFrancesco2, Joseph T Nguyen3, Resmi A Charalel4, Aaron Daluiski5. 1. Department of Hand and Upper Extremity Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY. 2. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Healthcare Research Institute, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY. 4. Department of Radiology, New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY. 5. Department of Hand and Upper Extremity Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY. Electronic address: DaluiskiA@hss.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate factors associated with positive online patient ratings and written comments regarding hand surgeons. METHODS: We randomly selected 250 hand surgeons from the American Society for Surgery of the Hand member directory. Surgeon demographic and rating data were collected from 3 physician review Web sites (www.HealthGrades.com, www.Vitals.com, and www.RateMDs.com). Written comments were categorized as being related to professional competence, communication, cost, overall recommendation, staff, and office practice. Online presence was defined by 5 criteria: professional Web site, Facebook page, Twitter page, and personal profiles on www.Healthgrades.com and/or www.Vitals.com. RESULTS: A total of 245 hand surgeons (98%) had at least one rating among the 3 Web sites. Mean number of ratings for each surgeon was 13.4, 8.3, and 1.9, respectively, and mean overall ratings were 4.0 out of 5, 3.3 out of 4, and 3.8 out of 5 stars on www.HealthGrades.com, www.Vitals.com, and www.RateMDs.com, respectively. Positive overall ratings were associated with a higher number of ratings, Castle Connolly status, and increased online presence. No consistent correlations were observed among online ratings and surgeon age, sex, years in practice, practice type (ie, private practice vs academics), and/or geographic region. Finally, positive written comments were more often related to factors dependent on perceived surgeon competence, whereas negative comments were related to factors independent of perceived competence. CONCLUSIONS: Physician review Web sites featured prominently on Google, and 98% of hand surgeons were rated online. This study characterized hand surgeon online patient ratings as well as identified factors associated with positive ratings and comments. In addition, these findings highlight how patients assess care quality. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding hand surgeon online ratings and identifying factors associated with positive ratings are important for both patients and surgeons because of the recent growth in physician-rating Web sites.
PURPOSE: To evaluate factors associated with positive online patient ratings and written comments regarding hand surgeons. METHODS: We randomly selected 250 hand surgeons from the American Society for Surgery of the Hand member directory. Surgeon demographic and rating data were collected from 3 physician review Web sites (www.HealthGrades.com, www.Vitals.com, and www.RateMDs.com). Written comments were categorized as being related to professional competence, communication, cost, overall recommendation, staff, and office practice. Online presence was defined by 5 criteria: professional Web site, Facebook page, Twitter page, and personal profiles on www.Healthgrades.com and/or www.Vitals.com. RESULTS: A total of 245 hand surgeons (98%) had at least one rating among the 3 Web sites. Mean number of ratings for each surgeon was 13.4, 8.3, and 1.9, respectively, and mean overall ratings were 4.0 out of 5, 3.3 out of 4, and 3.8 out of 5 stars on www.HealthGrades.com, www.Vitals.com, and www.RateMDs.com, respectively. Positive overall ratings were associated with a higher number of ratings, Castle Connolly status, and increased online presence. No consistent correlations were observed among online ratings and surgeon age, sex, years in practice, practice type (ie, private practice vs academics), and/or geographic region. Finally, positive written comments were more often related to factors dependent on perceived surgeon competence, whereas negative comments were related to factors independent of perceived competence. CONCLUSIONS: Physician review Web sites featured prominently on Google, and 98% of hand surgeons were rated online. This study characterized hand surgeon online patient ratings as well as identified factors associated with positive ratings and comments. In addition, these findings highlight how patients assess care quality. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding hand surgeon online ratings and identifying factors associated with positive ratings are important for both patients and surgeons because of the recent growth in physician-rating Web sites.
Authors: Benedict U Nwachukwu; Joshua Adjei; Samir K Trehan; Brenda Chang; Kelms Amoo-Achampong; Joseph T Nguyen; Samuel A Taylor; Frank McCormick; Anil S Ranawat Journal: HSS J Date: 2016-08-17
Authors: Dhanur Damodar; Chester J Donnally; Johnathon R McCormick; Deborah J Li; Giuseppe V Ingrasci; Martin W Roche; Rushabh M Vakharia; Tsun Y Law; Victor H Hernandez Journal: J Clin Orthop Trauma Date: 2019-01-25
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