Dataset Information

Online Patient Ratings Are Not Correlated with Total Knee Replacement Surgeon-Specific Outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite potential concerns regarding their validity, physician-rating websites continue to grow in number and utilization and feature prominently on major search engines, potentially affecting patient decision-making regarding physician selection.

Questions/purposes

We sought to determine whether patient ratings on public physician-rating websites correlate with surgeon-specific outcomes for high-volume total knee replacement (TKR) surgeons in New York State (NYS) from 2010 to 2012.

Methods

Online patient ratings were compared to surgeon-specific outcomes from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database from the NYS Department of Health. For each surgeon, we determined the infection rate, re-admission rate, and revision surgery rate within the study period, as well as the mean inpatient length of stay, for TKR from the SPARCS database. Online ratings were collected from two physician-rating websites (Vitals.com and HealthGrades.com).

Results

One hundred seventy-four high-volume TKR surgeons were identified in NYS from 2010 to 2012. The mean rates of in-hospital infection, 90-day infection, 30-day re-admission, 90-day re-admission, and revision surgery were 0.25, 1.00, 4.89, 8.43, and 1.31%, respectively. The mean number of ratings for individual surgeons on HealthGrades.com and Vitals.com were 24.0 (range: 0 to 109) and 19.3 (range: 0 to 114), respectively, and mean overall ratings were 4.2 and 4.1 (out of 5) stars, respectively. As with online patient ratings of individual surgeons, variability was observed in the total adverse event rate distribution for individual surgeons. Despite sufficient variability in both online patient rating and surgeon-specific outcomes for high-volume TKR surgeons in NYS, no correlation was observed.

Conclusion

There was no correlation between surgeon-specific TKR outcome measures and online patient ratings. We therefore advise that patients exert caution when interpreting ratings on these websites.

SUBMITTER: Trehan SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6031536 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Online Patient Ratings Are Not Correlated with Total Knee Replacement Surgeon-Specific Outcomes.

Trehan Samir K SK Nguyen Joseph T JT Marx Robert R Cross Michael B MB Pan Ting J TJ Daluiski Aaron A Lyman Stephen S

HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery 20180110 2

<h4>Background</h4>Despite potential concerns regarding their validity, physician-rating websites continue to grow in number and utilization and feature prominently on major search engines, potentially affecting patient decision-making regarding physician selection.<h4>Questions/purposes</h4>We sought to determine whether patient ratings on public physician-rating websites correlate with surgeon-specific outcomes for high-volume total knee replacement (TKR) surgeons in New York State (NYS) from ...[more]

PMID: 29983660

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo present a clear and comprehensive summary of the published data on unicompartmental knee replacement (UKA) or total knee replacement (TKA), comparing domains of outcome that have been shown to be important to patients and clinicians to allow informed decision making.DesignSystematic review using data from randomised controlled trials, nationwide databases or joint registries, and large cohort studies.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and Clinical Trials.gov, searched between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies published in the past 20 years, comparing outcomes of primary UKA with TKA in adult patients. Studies were excluded if they involved fewer than 50 participants, or if translation into English was not available.Results60 eligible studies were separated into three methodological groups: seven publications from six randomised controlled trials, 17 national joint registries and national database studies, and 36 cohort studies. Results for each domain of outcome varied depending on the level of data, and findings were not always significant. Analysis of the three groups of studies showed significantly shorter hospital stays after UKA than after TKA (-1.20 days (95% confidence interval -1.67 to -0.73), -1.43 (-1.53 to -1.33), and -1.73 (-2.30 to -1.16), respectively). There was no significant difference in pain, based on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), but significantly better functional PROM scores for UKA than for TKA in both non-trial groups (mean difference -0.58 (-0.88 to -0.27) and -0.32 (-0.48 to -0.15), respectively). Regarding major complications, trials and cohort studies had non-significant results, but mortality after TKA was significantly higher in registry and large database studies (risk ratio 0.27 (0.16 to 0.45)), as were venous thromboembolic events (0.39 (0.27 to 0.57)) and major cardiac events (0.22 (0.06 to 0.86)). Early reoperation for any reason was higher after TKA than after UKA, but revision rates at five years remained higher for UKA in all three study groups (risk ratio 5.95 (1.29 to 27.59), 2.50 (1.77 to 3.54), and 3.13 (1.89 to 5.17), respectively).ConclusionsTKA and UKA are both viable options for the treatment of isolated unicompartmental osteoarthritis. By directly comparing the two treatments, this study demonstrates better results for UKA in several outcome domains. However, the risk of revision surgery was lower for TKA. This information should be available to patients as part of the shared decision making process in choosing treatment options.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO number CRD42018089972.

Project description:BackgroundPatients may use two information sources about a health care provider's quality: online physician reviews, which are written by patients to reflect their subjective experience, and report cards, which are based on objective health outcomes.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the impact of online ratings on patient choice of cardiac surgeon compared to that of report cards.MethodsWe obtained ratings from a leading physician review platform, Vitals; report card scores from Pennsylvania Cardiac Surgery Reports; and information about patients' choices of surgeons from inpatient records on coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgeries done in Pennsylvania from 2008 to 2017. We scraped all reviews posted on Vitals for surgeons who performed CABG surgeries in Pennsylvania during our study period. We linked the average overall rating and the most recent report card score at the time of a patient's surgery to the patient's record based on the surgeon's name, focusing on fee-for-service patients to avoid impacts of insurance networks on patient choices. We used random coefficient logit models with surgeon fixed effects to examine the impact of receiving a high online rating and a high report card score on patient choice of surgeon for CABG surgeries.ResultsWe found that a high online rating had positive and significant effects on patient utility, with limited variation in preferences across individuals, while the impact of a high report card score on patient choice was trivial and insignificant. About 70.13% of patients considered no information on Vitals better than a low rating; the corresponding figure was 26.66% for report card scores. The findings were robust to alternative choice set definitions and were not explained by surgeon attrition, referral effect, or admission status. Our results also show that the interaction effect of rating information and a time trend was positive and significant for online ratings, but small and insignificant for report cards.ConclusionsA patient's choice of surgeon is affected by both types of rating information; however, over the past decade, online ratings have become more influential, while the effect of report cards has remained trivial. Our findings call for information provision strategies that incorporate the advantages of both online ratings and report cards.

Project description:BackgroundA patient-engagement and pathway-management program for patients undergoing primary total hip and knee replacement was evaluated. Health-service and multimedia features supported by technology were integrated with existing enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) practices. The primary objective was to demonstrate the impact on length of stay. The secondary objective was to assess the impact on clinical, patient-focused, and financial outcomes.MethodsTwo thousand and eighty consecutive patients undergoing primary total hip replacement (n = 1,034) and total knee replacement (n = 1,046) were classified into "pre-program" (retrospectively assessed [n = 1,038]) and "program" (prospectively assessed [n = 1,042]) cohorts. Patients in the program cohort were subdivided according to those who were eligible for criteria-based outreach support (OS) (n = 401) and those who were ineligible for this service (NOS) (n = 641). Clinical outcomes were assessed for all patients, and patient-focused outcomes were assessed for a subset (n = 223).ResultsThe mean reduction in length of stay ranged from 20% (1.2 days) to 42% (2.5 days) following total hip replacement and from 9% (0.6 day) to 31% (2 days) following total knee replacement (p < 0.001). Clinical outcomes (readmissions, complications, emergency department re-attendance rates) were not significantly negatively impacted. The Oxford Hip Score had numerically larger improvement after total hip replacement in the OS group than in the pre-program group (4.1-point increase), and the Oxford Knee Score had numerically larger improvement after total knee replacement in the NOS group than in the pre-program group (0.8-point increase). The patients in the program cohort (either OS or NOS) rated overall health gain as higher than those in the pre-program cohort (gain in numerical rating scale, 1.4 points for patients managed with total hip replacement, 0.6 points for patients managed with total knee replacement). Older patients and those with higher comorbidity indices benefited most with respect to length of stay and multiple clinical outcomes. Patient experience was significantly improved across domains (p < 0.001 to p = 0.003). Potential savings for patients managed with total hip replacement (£401.64 [$267.76] per patient) exceeded estimated program charges of £50 [$33.33] to £60 [$40] per patient, whereas the potential savings for patients managed with total knee replacement (£76.67 [$51.11] per patient) were sufficient to achieve a reduction of total system costs.ConclusionsTechnology-enabled programs may deliver enhanced care at lower costs for patients undergoing lower-limb arthroplasty. Shorter durations of inpatient stay without a negative impact on clinical outcomes and improved patient-focused outcomes and experience can deliver substantial value that can be especially beneficial for older patients and those with greater medical complexity.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Dataset Information

Online Patient Ratings Are Not Correlated with Total Knee Replacement Surgeon-Specific Outcomes.

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Online Patient Ratings Are Not Correlated with Total Knee Replacement Surgeon-Specific Outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets