Usman A Syed1,2,3,4,5,6, Daniel Acevedo1,2,3,4,5,6, Alexa C Narzikul1,2,3,4,5,6, Wade Coomer1,2,3,4,5,6, Pedro K Beredjiklian1,2,3,4,5,6, Joseph A Abboud1,2,3,4,5,6. 1. Shoulder and Elbow Division, The Rothman Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Division of Hand Surgery Rothman Institute, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Director of Research, Shoulder and Elbow Division, Director of Clinical Operations at The Rothman Institute, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 6. Research performed at The Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to evaluate current physician ratings websites (PRWs) to determine which factors correlated to higher physician scores and evaluate physician perspective of PRWs. METHODS: This study evaluated two popular websites, Healthgrades.com and Vitals.com, to gather information on practicing physician members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Society database. A survey was conducted of the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) membership to gather data on the perception held by individual physicians regarding PRWs. RESULTS: We found that patients were more likely to give physicians positive reviews and the average overall score was 8.35 (3.75-10). Patient wait time (P=0.052) trended toward significance as a major factor in determining the overall scores, while ratings in both physician bedside manner (P=0.001) and physician/staff courtesy (P=0.002) were significant in reflecting the overall score given to the physician. According to our survey, a majority of the respondents were indifferent to highly unfavorable to PRWs (88%) and the validity of their ratings (78%). CONCLUSION: As PRWs become increasingly popular amongst patients in this digital age, it is critical to understand that the scores are not reflective of a significant proportion of the physicians' patient population. Physicians can use this study to determine what affects a patient's experience and focus efforts on improving patients' perception of quality, overall satisfaction, and overall care. Consumers may use this study to increase their awareness of the potential for significant sampling error inherent in PRWs when making decisions about their care.
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to evaluate current physician ratings websites (PRWs) to determine which factors correlated to higher physician scores and evaluate physician perspective of PRWs. METHODS: This study evaluated two popular websites, Healthgrades.com and Vitals.com, to gather information on practicing physician members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Society database. A survey was conducted of the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) membership to gather data on the perception held by individual physicians regarding PRWs. RESULTS: We found that patients were more likely to give physicians positive reviews and the average overall score was 8.35 (3.75-10). Patient wait time (P=0.052) trended toward significance as a major factor in determining the overall scores, while ratings in both physician bedside manner (P=0.001) and physician/staff courtesy (P=0.002) were significant in reflecting the overall score given to the physician. According to our survey, a majority of the respondents were indifferent to highly unfavorable to PRWs (88%) and the validity of their ratings (78%). CONCLUSION: As PRWs become increasingly popular amongst patients in this digital age, it is critical to understand that the scores are not reflective of a significant proportion of the physicians' patient population. Physicians can use this study to determine what affects a patient's experience and focus efforts on improving patients' perception of quality, overall satisfaction, and overall care. Consumers may use this study to increase their awareness of the potential for significant sampling error inherent in PRWs when making decisions about their care.
Authors: Chandy Ellimoottil; Stefan W Leichtle; Corey J Wright; Abdulla Fakhro; Amanda K Arrington; Thomas J Chirichella; William H Ward Journal: Bull Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-09
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