Online Ratings of Primary Care Physicians: Comparison of Gender, Training, and Specialty.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wachs D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8205358 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceDespite the increasing involvement of advanced practice practitioners (APPs; ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in care delivery across specialties, the work patterns of APPs compared with physicians and how they are integrated into care teams have not been well characterized.ObjectiveTo characterize differences between physicians and APPs across specialty types related to days with appointments, visit types seen, and time spent using the electronic health record (EHR).Design, setting, and participantsThis nationwide, cross-sectional study used EHR data from physicians and APPs (ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) at all US institutions that used Epic Systems' EHR between January and May 2021. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to April 2023.Main outcomes and measuresAppointment scheduling patterns, percentage of new and established and level of evaluation and management (E/M) visits, and EHR use metrics per day and week.ResultsThe sample consisted of 217 924 clinicians across 389 organizations, including 174 939 physicians and 42 985 APPs. Although primary care physicians were more likely than APPs to have more than 3 days per week with appointments (50 921 physicians [79.5%] vs 17 095 APPs [77.9%]), this trend was reversed for medical (38 645 physicians [64.8%] vs 8124 APPs [74.0%]) and surgical (24 155 physicians [47.1%] vs 5198 APPs [51.7%]) specialties. Medical and surgical specialty physicians saw 6.7 and 7.4 percentage points, respectively, more new patient visits than did their APP counterparts, whereas primary care physicians saw 2.8 percentage points fewer new patient visits than did APPs. Physicians saw a greater percentage of level 4 or 5 visits across all specialties. Medical and surgical physicians spent 34.3 and 45.8 fewer minutes per day, respectively, using the EHR than did APPs in their specialties, whereas primary care physicians spent 17.7 minutes per day more. These differences translated to primary care physicians spending 96.3 minutes more per week using the EHR than APPs, whereas medical and surgical physicians spent 149.9 and 140.7 fewer minutes, respectively, than did their APP counterparts.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional, national study of clinicians found significant differences in visit and EHR patterns for physicians compared with APPs across specialty types. By underscoring the different current usage of physicians vs APPs across specialty types, this study helps place into context the work and visit patterns of physicians compared with APPs and serves as a foundation for evaluations of clinical outcomes and quality.
| S-EPMC10265293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInformation from ratings sites are increasingly informing patient decisions related to health care and the selection of physicians.ObjectiveThe current study sought to determine the validity of online patient ratings of physicians through comparison with physician peer review.MethodsWe extracted 223,715 reviews of 41,104 physicians from 10 of the largest cities in the United States, including 1142 physicians listed as "America's Top Doctors" through physician peer review. Differences in mean online patient ratings were tested for physicians who were listed and those who were not.ResultsOverall, no differences were found between the online patient ratings based upon physician peer review status. However, statistical differences were found for four specialties (family medicine, allergists, internal medicine, and pediatrics), with online patient ratings significantly higher for those physicians listed as a peer-reviewed "Top Doctor" versus those who were not.ConclusionsThe results of this large-scale study indicate that while online patient ratings are consistent with physician peer review for four nonsurgical, primarily in-office specializations, patient ratings were not consistent with physician peer review for specializations like anesthesiology. This result indicates that the validity of patient ratings varies by medical specialization.
| S-EPMC5913572 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEffective immunizations require a thorough, multi-step process, yet few studies comprehensively addressed issues around vaccination management.ObjectivesTo assess variations in vaccination management and vaccination errors in primary care.MethodsA cross sectional, web-based questionnaire survey was performed among 1157 primary physicians from North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany: a representative 10% random sample of general practitioners (n = 946) and all teaching physicians from the University Duisburg-Essen (n = 211). Four quality aspects with three items each were included: patient-related quality (patient information, patient consent, strategies to increase immunization rates), vaccine-related quality (practice vaccine spectrum, vaccine pre-selection, vaccination documentation), personnel-related quality (recommendation of vaccinations, vaccine application, personnel qualification) and storage-related quality (storage device, temperature log, vaccine storage control). For each of the four quality aspects, "good quality" was reached if all three criteria per quality aspect were fulfilled. Good vaccination management was defined as fulfilling all twelve items. Additionally, physicians' experiences with errors and nearby-errors in vaccination management were obtained.ResultsMore than 20% of the physicians participated in the survey. Good vaccination management was reached by 19% of the practices. Patient-related quality was good in 69% of the practices, vaccine-related quality in 73%, personnel-related quality in 59% and storage-related quality in 41% of the practices. No predictors for error reporting and good vaccination management were identified.ConclusionsWe identified good results for vaccine- and patient-related quality but need to improve issues that revolve around vaccine storage.
| S-EPMC4132103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IN BRIEF Insulin dose adjustment decisions in 20 simulated patients by nine primary care physicians (PCPs) and nine endocrinologists were compared to the algorithms used in a diabetes program in a large safety-net clinic. The number of dose changes was similar in the PCP and endocrinologist groups; however, the amounts of the dose changes in the PCP group were significantly closer to the diabetes program algorithms than the amounts in the endocrinologist group. Time constraints, rather than lack of ability, seem to be the major barrier to PCPs treating patients with insulin.
| S-EPMC5775011 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPhysician ratings websites have emerged as a novel forum for consumers to comment on their health care experiences. Little is known about such ratings in Canada.ObjectiveWe investigated the scope and trends for specialty, geographic region, and time for online physician ratings in Canada using a national data source from the country's leading physician-rating website.MethodsThis observational retrospective study used online ratings data from Canadian physicians (January 2005-September 2013; N=640,603). For specialty, province, and year of rating, we assessed whether physicians were likely to be rated favorably by using the proportion of ratings greater than the overall median rating.ResultsIn total, 57,412 unique physicians had 640,603 individual ratings. Overall, ratings were positive (mean 3.9, SD 1.3). On average, each physician had 11.2 (SD 10.1) ratings. By comparing specialties with Canadian Institute of Health Information physician population numbers over our study period, we inferred that certain specialties (obstetrics and gynecology, family practice, surgery, and dermatology) were more commonly rated, whereas others (pathology, radiology, genetics, and anesthesia) were less represented. Ratings varied by specialty; cardiac surgery, nephrology, genetics, and radiology were more likely to be rated in the top 50th percentile, whereas addiction medicine, dermatology, neurology, and psychiatry were more often rated in the lower 50th percentile of ratings. Regarding geographic practice location, ratings were more likely to be favorable for physicians practicing in eastern provinces compared with western and central Canada. Regarding year, the absolute number of ratings peaked in 2007 before stabilizing and decreasing by 2013. Moreover, ratings were most likely to be positive in 2007 and again in 2013.ConclusionsPhysician-rating websites are a relatively novel source of provider-level patient satisfaction and are a valuable source of the patient experience. It is important to understand the breadth and scope of such ratings, particularly regarding specialty, geographic practice location, and changes over time.
| S-EPMC5863010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:China has a huge population with respiratory diseases, these diseases should be managed well in primary care, however, primary care physicians’ knowledge level of these diseases were unknown. The aim of the study was to assess primary care physicians’ knowledge of asthma, CAP, COPD, and influenza in China. An e-questionnaire was distributed to attendees of respiratory diseases academic conferences in China from July, 2017 to December, 2018. 7391 questionnaires were returned and 4815 valid questionnaires were analyzed, 3802 (79.0%) from community health service centers and 1013 (21.0%) from township hospitals. The average score of the questionnaire was 83.3 (±20.397) and 72.1 (±20.898) in township and community hospitals, respectively (P < 0.05). 61.4%, 48.7%, and 42.5% of the primary care physicians were aware of clinical manifestations of COPD, asthma, and simple influenza. 85.7%, 8.1%, 16.1%, and 1.0% knew how to diagnose COPD, asthma, CAP and influenza, respectively. 94.4% of the physicians lacked the knowledge of treating COPD with bronchodilators; 53.7% knew non-pharmacological treatments for COPD. 73.6% were unable to deal with asthma attacks. 65.1% did not know what the most essential and important treatment for influenza was. 92% of physicians did not know the management for stable COPD; 3.0% knew all prevention and management measures for asthma. 37.9% knew all the preventive measures for CAP. 44.9% did not know the important role of influenza vaccine in preventing influenza and its complications. Primary care physicians in China had a poor knowledge of CAP, asthma, Influenza, COPD. There is a need for improved training of common respiratory diseases.
| S-EPMC9389487 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSignificant variability exists in the amount of formal obesity training obtained by physicians caring for pediatric patients. The study objective was to assess the relationship between formal obesity training and pediatrics physicians' perceptions, practice patterns, overall knowledge, and confidence during management of pediatric obesity.MethodsAn anonymous survey was distributed via email from February 2020 through March 2020 at a large academic system. Internal medicine/pediatrics (46 total) and pediatrics (104 total) primary care providers were selected. Data were collected on the total number of obesity-related training hours by quartiles, demographics, physicians' clinical practice patterns, and physicians' knowledge of pediatric obesity management, along with their perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs.ResultsA total of 73 survey participants completed the survey: 69% were female, 77% were older than 40 years, and 74% were White. Physicians with the highest training were most likely to feel confident when managing pediatric obesity. However, only 20% of all physicians felt confident providing pre- and post-bariatric surgery care, and just 6% of physicians self-reported achieving management success.ConclusionsIncreased obesity training improves physicians' confidence and leads to familiarity with management guidelines. Formal obesity training should be prioritized during residency and beyond so that physicians who care for pediatric patients are better equipped to offer unbiased and effective care.
| S-EPMC7902290 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Press Ganey Outpatient Medical Practice Survey is used to measure the patient experience. An understanding of the patient- and physician-related determinants of the patient experience may help identify opportunities to improve health care delivery and physician ratings.ObjectiveTo evaluate the associations between the patient experience as measured by scores on the Press Ganey survey and patient-physician racial/ethnic and gender concordance.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional analysis of Press Ganey surveys returned for outpatient visits within the University of Pennsylvania Health System between 2014 and 2017 was performed. Participants included adult patient and physician dyads for whom surveys were returned. Data analysis was performed from January to June 2019.ExposuresPatient-physician racial/ethnic and gender concordance.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was receipt of the maximum score for the "likelihood of your recommending this care provider to others" question in the Care Provider domain of the Press Ganey survey. Secondary outcomes included each of the remaining 9 questions in the Care Provider domain. Generalized estimating equations clustering on physicians with exchangeable intracluster correlations and cluster-robust standard errors were used to investigate associations between the outcomes and patient-physician racial/ethnic and gender concordance.ResultsIn total, 117 589 surveys were evaluated, corresponding to 92 238 unique patients (mean [SD] age, 57.7 [15.6] years; 37 002 men [40.1%]; 75 307 White patients [81.6%]) and 747 unique physicians (mean [SD] age 45.5 [10.6] years; 472 men [63.2%]; 533 White physicians [71.4%]). Compared with racially/ethnically concordant patient-physician dyads, discordance was associated with a lower likelihood of physicians receiving the maximum score (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.94; P < .001). Black (adjusted OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68-0.78; P < .001) and Asian (adjusted OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.60; P < .001) patient race were both associated with lower patient experience ratings. Patient-physician gender concordance was not associated with Press Ganey scores (adjusted OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.04; P = .90).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, higher Press Ganey survey scores were associated with racial/ethnic concordance between patients and their physicians. Efforts to improve physician workforce diversity are imperative. Delivery of health care in a culturally mindful manner between racially/ethnically discordant patient-physician dyads is also essential. Furthermore, Press Ganey scores may differ by a physician's patient demographic mix; thus, care must be taken when publicly reporting or using Press Ganey scores to evaluate physicians on an individual level.
| S-EPMC7653497 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA new intervention aimed at managing patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) based on a specific set of communication techniques was developed, and tested in a cluster randomised clinical trial. Due to the modest results obtained and in order to improve our intervention we need to know the GPs' attitudes towards patients with MUS, their experience, expectations and the utility of the communication techniques we proposed and the feasibility of implementing them. Physicians who took part in 2 different training programs and in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for patients with MUS were questioned to ascertain the reasons for the doctors' participation in the trial and the attitudes, experiences and expectations of GPs about the intervention.MethodsA qualitative study based on four focus groups with GPs who took part in a RCT. A content analysis was carried out.ResultsFollowing the RCT patients are perceived as true suffering persons, and the relationship with them has improved in GPs of both groups. GPs mostly valued the fact that it is highly structured, that it made possible a more comfortable relationship and that it could be applied to a broad spectrum of patients with psychosocial problems. Nevertheless, all participants consider that change in patients is necessary; GPs in the intervention group remarked that that is extremely difficult to achieve.ConclusionGPs positively evaluate the communication techniques and the interventions that help in understanding patient suffering, and express the enormous difficulties in handling change in patients. These findings provide information on the direction in which efforts for improving intervention should be directed.Trial registrationUS ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00130988.
| S-EPMC2790434 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAmong health care providers, prescription of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been low. Little is known specifically about primary care physicians (PCPs) with regard to PrEP awareness and adoption (i.e., prescription or referral), and factors associated with adoption.ObjectiveTo assess PrEP awareness, PrEP adoption, and factors associated with adoption among PCPs.DesignCross-sectional online survey conducted in April and May 2015.RespondentsMembers of a national professional organization for academic primary care physicians (n?=?266).Main measuresPrEP awareness, PrEP adoption (ever prescribed or referred a patient for PrEP [yes/no]), provider and practice characteristics, and self-rated knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs associated with adoption.Key resultsThe survey response rate was 8.6 % (266/2093). Ninety-three percent of respondents reported prior awareness of PrEP. Of these, 34.9 % reported PrEP adoption. In multivariable analysis of provider and practice characteristics, compared with non-adopters, adopters were more likely to provide care to more than 50 HIV-positive patients (vs. 0, aOR?=?6.82, 95 % CI 2.06-22.52). Compared with non-adopters, adopters were also more likely to report excellent, very good, or good self-rated PrEP knowledge (15.1 %, 33.7 %, 30.2 % vs. 2.5 %, 18.1 %, 23.8 %, respectively; p?<?0.001) and to perceive PrEP as extremely safe (35.1 % vs. 10.7 %; p?=?0.002). Compared with non-adopters, adopters were less likely to perceive PrEP as being moderately likely to increase risk behaviors ("risk compensation") (12.8 % vs. 28.8 %, p?=?0.02).ConclusionsWhile most respondents were aware of PrEP, only one-third of PrEP-aware PCPs reported adoption. Adopters were more likely to have experience providing HIV care and to perceive PrEP as extremely safe, and were less likely to perceive PrEP use as leading to risk compensation. To enhance PCP adoption of PrEP, educational efforts targeting PCPs without HIV care experience should be considered, as well as training those with HIV care experience to be PrEP "clinical champions". Concerns about safety and risk compensation must also be addressed.
| S-EPMC5215171 | biostudies-literature