Dataset Information

From the closest observers of patient care: a thematic analysis of online narrative reviews of hospitals.

ABSTRACT: Patient-centred care has become a priority in many countries. It is unknown whether current tools capture aspects of care patients and their surrogates consider important. We investigated whether online narrative reviews from patients and surrogates reflect domains in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) and we described additional potential domains.We used thematic analysis to assess online narrative reviews for reference to HCAHPS domains and salient non-HCAHPS domains and compared results by reviewer type (patient vs surrogate).We identified hospitals for review from the American Hospital Association database using a stratified random sampling approach. This approach ensured inclusion of reviews of a diverse set of hospitals. We searched online in February 2013 for narrative reviews from any source for each hospital.We included up to two narrative reviews for each hospital.Outpatient or emergency department reviews, reviews from self-identified hospital employees, or reviews of <10 words.50.0% (n=122) of reviews (N=244) were from patients and 38.1% (n=93) from friends or family members. Only 57.0% (n=139) of reviews mentioned any HCAHPS domain. Additional salient domains were: Financing, including unexpected out-of-pocket costs and difficult interactions with billing departments; system-centred care; and perceptions of safety. These domains were mentioned in 51.2% (n=125) of reviews. Friends and family members commented on perceptions of safety more frequently than patients.A substantial proportion of consumer reviews do not mention HCAHPS domains. Surrogates appear to observe care differently than patients, particularly around safety.

SUBMITTER: Bardach NS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5360532 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

From the closest observers of patient care: a thematic analysis of online narrative reviews of hospitals.

Bardach Naomi S NS Lyndon Audrey A Asteria-Peñaloza Renée R Goldman L Elizabeth LE Lin Grace A GA Dudley R Adams RA

BMJ quality & safety 20151215 11

<h4>Objective</h4>Patient-centred care has become a priority in many countries. It is unknown whether current tools capture aspects of care patients and their surrogates consider important. We investigated whether online narrative reviews from patients and surrogates reflect domains in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) and we described additional potential domains.<h4>Design</h4>We used thematic analysis to assess online narrative reviews for reference ...[more]

PMID: 26677215

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although health care organizations such as hospitals and clinics have widely embraced social media as a means to educate the community on health topics and increase patient loyalty and satisfaction, little is known about the content these organizations actually share when using social media channels. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to explore the types of content US hospitals post on their Facebook pages and how hospitals' Facebook activities differ with regard to content types. METHODS:We collected and thematically analyzed more than 1700 Facebook posts made over a 3-month period by 17 US hospitals. During the first phase, the 2 researchers coded a set of 159 posts and created an initial thematic web of content. During the second phase, the researchers coded the remaining posts and then revised, refined, and validated the initial web of content accordingly. Coding consensus was achieved on 1184 of the 1548 analyzable sampled posts (76.49%). RESULTS:We identified a list of 13 unique health social media post themes and classified those themes into 3 thematic groups that included announcing, sharing, and recognizing activities. The most frequently used theme was sharing health information, which appeared in 35.81% (424/1184) of the posts analyzed. Such posts sought to provide health tips and advice to community members. Recognizing special days and recognizing employees were the second and third most frequently used themes, respectively, with 14.95% (177/1184) and 11.82% (140/1184) of the posts containing those themes. The frequency of these themes was surprising as the content was geared more toward stakeholders internal to the organization, although most previous literature has focused on social media as a tool to connect with external stakeholders. In addition, we found many of the posts involved more than one theme, and selected sets of themes co-occurred frequently. For example, 25.4% (45/177) of the posts recognizing special days also included content to share health information, and approximately 38% (32/85) of the posts announcing research activities also included content to share health information. Finally, we found similarities and differences between the sampled hospitals in terms of the types of content they posted more frequently on their Facebook pages. CONCLUSIONS:Hospitals use Facebook as an inexpensive way to educate people on health and wellness topics and to communicate different types of information and news to the public audience. Hospitals and clinics that are expanding their social media activities or are starting to embark on social media strategies can use the results of this study to better formulate their activities on Facebook.

Project description:BackgroundOnline physician reviews are an important source of information for prospective patients. In addition, they represent an untapped resource for studying the effects of gender on the doctor-patient relationship. Understanding gender differences in online reviews is important because it may impact the value of those reviews to patients. Documenting gender differences in patient experience may also help to improve the doctor-patient relationship. This is the first large-scale study of physician reviews to extensively investigate gender bias in online reviews or offer recommendations for improvements to online review systems to correct for gender bias and aid patients in selecting a physician.ObjectiveThis study examines 154,305 reviews from across the United States for all medical specialties. Our analysis includes a qualitative and quantitative examination of review content and physician rating with regard to doctor and reviewer gender.MethodsA total of 154,305 reviews were sampled from Google Place reviews. Reviewer and doctor gender were inferred from names. Reviews were coded for overall patient experience (negative or positive) by collapsing a 5-star scale and coded for general categories (process, positive/negative soft skills), which were further subdivided into themes. Computational text processing methods were employed to apply this codebook to the entire data set, rendering it tractable to quantitative methods. Specifically, we estimated binary regression models to examine relationships between physician rating, patient experience themes, physician gender, and reviewer gender).ResultsFemale reviewers wrote 60% more reviews than men. Male reviewers were more likely to give negative reviews (odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.19; P<.001). Reviews of female physicians were considerably more negative than those of male physicians (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.94-2.14; P<.001). Soft skills were more likely to be mentioned in the reviews written by female reviewers and about female physicians. Negative reviews of female doctors were more likely to mention candor (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.42-1.82; P<.001) and amicability (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.47-1.90; P<.001). Disrespect was associated with both female physicians (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.35-1.51; P<.001) and female reviewers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19-1.35; P<.001). Female patients were less likely to report disrespect from female doctors than expected from the base ORs (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.32; P=.008), but this effect overrode only the effect for female reviewers.ConclusionsThis work reinforces findings in the extensive literature on gender differences and gender bias in patient-physician interaction. Its novel contribution lies in highlighting gender differences in online reviews. These reviews inform patients' choice of doctor and thus affect both patients and physicians. The evidence of gender bias documented here suggests review sites may be improved by providing information about gender differences, controlling for gender when presenting composite ratings for physicians, and helping users write less biased reviews.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The number of patient online reviews (PORs) has grown significantly, and PORs have played an increasingly important role in patients' choice of health care providers. OBJECTIVE:The objective of our study was to systematically review studies on PORs, summarize the major findings and study characteristics, identify literature gaps, and make recommendations for future research. METHODS:A major database search was completed in January 2019. Studies were included if they (1) focused on PORs of physicians and hospitals, (2) reported qualitative or quantitative results from analysis of PORs, and (3) peer-reviewed empirical studies. Study characteristics and major findings were synthesized using predesigned tables. RESULTS:A total of 63 studies (69 articles) that met the above criteria were included in the review. Most studies (n=48) were conducted in the United States, including Puerto Rico, and the remaining were from Europe, Australia, and China. Earlier studies (published before 2010) used content analysis with small sample sizes; more recent studies retrieved and analyzed larger datasets using machine learning technologies. The number of PORs ranged from fewer than 200 to over 700,000. About 90% of the studies were focused on clinicians, typically specialists such as surgeons; 27% covered health care organizations, typically hospitals; and some studied both. A majority of PORs were positive and patients' comments on their providers were favorable. Although most studies were descriptive, some compared PORs with traditional surveys of patient experience and found a high degree of correlation and some compared PORs with clinical outcomes but found a low level of correlation. CONCLUSIONS:PORs contain valuable information that can generate insights into quality of care and patient-provider relationship, but it has not been systematically used for studies of health care quality. With the advancement of machine learning and data analysis tools, we anticipate more research on PORs based on testable hypotheses and rigorous analytic methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42018085057; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=85057 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/76ddvTZ1C).

Project description:ImportanceLittle is known about how discrimination in health care relates to inequities in hospital-based care because of limitations in the ability to measure discrimination. Consumer reviews offer a novel source of data to capture experiences of discrimination in health care settings.ObjectiveTo examine how health care consumers perceive and report discrimination through public consumer reviews.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study assessed Yelp online reviews from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020, of 100 randomly selected acute care hospitals in the US. Word filtering was used to identify reviews potentially related to discrimination by using keywords abstracted from the Everyday Discrimination Scale, a commonly used questionnaire to measure discrimination. A codebook was developed through a modified grounded theory and qualitative content analysis approach to categorize recurrent themes of discrimination, which was then applied to the hospital reviews.ExposuresReported experiences of discrimination within a health care setting.Main outcomes and measuresPerceptions of how discrimination in health care is experienced and reported by consumers.ResultsA total of 10 535 reviews were collected. Reviews were filtered by words commonly associated with discriminatory experiences, which identified 2986 reviews potentially related to discrimination. Using the codebook, the team manually identified 182 reviews that described at least 1 instance of discrimination. Acts of discrimination were categorized by actors of discrimination (individual vs institution), setting (clinical vs nonclinical), and directionality (whether consumers expressed discriminatory beliefs toward health care staff). A total of 53 reviews (29.1%) were coded as examples of institutional racism; 89 reviews (48.9%) mentioned acts of discrimination that occurred in clinical spaces as consumers were waiting for or actively receiving care; 25 reviews (13.7%) mentioned acts of discrimination that occurred in nonclinical spaces, such as lobbies; and 66 reviews (36.3%) documented discrimination by the consumer directed at the health care workforce. Acts of discrimination are described through 6 recurrent themes, including acts of commission, omission, unprofessionalism, disrespect, stereotyping, and dehumanizing.Conclusions and relevanceIn this qualitative study, consumer reviews were found to highlight recurrent patterns of discrimination within health care settings. Applying quality improvement tools, such as the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle, to this source of data and this study's findings may help inform assessments and initiatives directed at reducing discrimination within the health care setting.

Dataset Information

From the closest observers of patient care: a thematic analysis of online narrative reviews of hospitals.

Publications

From the closest observers of patient care: a thematic analysis of online narrative reviews of hospitals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets