Saisanjana Kalagara1, Adam E M Eltorai1, J Mason DePasse2, Alan H Daniels3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 100 Butler Drive, Providence, RI 02906, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 100 Butler Drive, Providence, RI 02906, USA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Spine Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 100 Butler Drive, Providence, RI 02906, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 100 Butler Drive, Providence, RI 02906, USA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Division of Spine Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 100 Butler Drive, Providence, RI 02906, USA. Electronic address: Alan_Daniels@Brown.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Online physician rating websites are increasingly used by patients to evaluate their doctors. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate factors associated with better spine surgeon ratings. METHODS: Orthopedic spine surgeons were randomly selected from the North American Spine Society directory utilizing a random number generator. Surgeon profiles on three physician rating websites, namely, www.HealthGrades.com, www.Vitals.com, and www.RateMDs.com, were analyzed to gather qualitative and quantitative data on patients' perceptions of the surgeons. Independent variables from the websites were analyzed in relation to overall physician or patient satisfaction rating. Comments were coded by subject into following three categories: professional competence, bedside manner, and practice characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 250 surgeons were evaluated, and 92% (n=230) of these doctors had at least one rating among the three websites. The surgeons with a higher average rating had significantly better trust (p<.01), scheduling (p<.01), staff (p<.01), helpfulness (p<.01), and punctuality (p<.01) scores but significantly less experience (p<.05). A linear regression model for the average rating of each surgeon (R2 value=0.754) yielded only following three significant variables: trustworthiness (p<.01), experience match (p<.05), and the average number of negative comments on surgeon's professional competence (p<.05). Trustworthiness (β=0.749) was the strongest predictor variable of physician rating, followed by the number of negative professional competence comments (β=-0.132) and experience match (β=-0.112). CONCLUSIONS: This investigation assessed spine surgeon online patient ratings and categorized factors that patients associate with quality care. Trustworthiness was the most significant predictor of positive ratings, whereas ease of scheduling, quality of staff, helpfulness, and punctuality were also associated with higher patient ratings. Understanding what patients value may help optimize care of spine surgery patients.
BACKGROUND: Online physician rating websites are increasingly used by patients to evaluate their doctors. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate factors associated with better spine surgeon ratings. METHODS: Orthopedic spine surgeons were randomly selected from the North American Spine Society directory utilizing a random number generator. Surgeon profiles on three physician rating websites, namely, www.HealthGrades.com, www.Vitals.com, and www.RateMDs.com, were analyzed to gather qualitative and quantitative data on patients' perceptions of the surgeons. Independent variables from the websites were analyzed in relation to overall physician or patient satisfaction rating. Comments were coded by subject into following three categories: professional competence, bedside manner, and practice characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 250 surgeons were evaluated, and 92% (n=230) of these doctors had at least one rating among the three websites. The surgeons with a higher average rating had significantly better trust (p<.01), scheduling (p<.01), staff (p<.01), helpfulness (p<.01), and punctuality (p<.01) scores but significantly less experience (p<.05). A linear regression model for the average rating of each surgeon (R2 value=0.754) yielded only following three significant variables: trustworthiness (p<.01), experience match (p<.05), and the average number of negative comments on surgeon's professional competence (p<.05). Trustworthiness (β=0.749) was the strongest predictor variable of physician rating, followed by the number of negative professional competence comments (β=-0.132) and experience match (β=-0.112). CONCLUSIONS: This investigation assessed spine surgeon online patient ratings and categorized factors that patients associate with quality care. Trustworthiness was the most significant predictor of positive ratings, whereas ease of scheduling, quality of staff, helpfulness, and punctuality were also associated with higher patient ratings. Understanding what patients value may help optimize care of spine surgery patients.
Authors: Y Alicia Hong; Chen Liang; Tiffany A Radcliff; Lisa T Wigfall; Richard L Street Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 5.428