Dataset Information

Negative Online Ratings of Joint Replacement Surgeons: An Analysis of 6,402 Reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Background

With the expanding accessibility of online health-care information, patients frequently report visiting physician rating websites before choosing a surgeon. As such, it is important to analyze patients' perception of arthroplasty surgeons as reflected on physician rating websites.

Methods

A total of 6402 online reviews of arthroplasty surgeons were extracted for analysis. Each review rated less than 5 on a 5-point scale was deemed a "negative" review and was subsequently assigned to an appropriate category. Reviews were stratified by practice type, years in practice, gender, and low (<3) vs high (> 3) ratings.

Results

A total of 6402 reviews comprising 315 physicians were included in the analysis. The average rating for all surgeons was 4.35. The average rating for physicians in private practice was 4.3, compared to 4.5 for those in an academic setting. The average rating for physicians in practice for 1-10 years was 4.46, compared to 4.03 for those with >10 years of experience (P < .001). The most common factors contributing to negative reviews were bedside manner, wait time, poor outcome, and surgeon proficiency. Surgeon-dependent factors were more commonly associated with lower rated reviews (P < .001).

Conclusions

Arthroplasty surgeons typically receive high online ratings, with a mean of 4.35 on a 5-point scale. Physicians in academic practice received higher ratings than those in private practice, and physicians who have been in practice for 1-10 years received higher ratings than those with more than 10 years in practice. The most common factors contributing to negative reviews are surgeon-dependent, including bedside manner, poor outcome, and surgeon proficiency.

SUBMITTER: Imbergamo C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8217335 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite 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/purposesWe 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.MethodsOnline 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).ResultsOne 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.ConclusionThere 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.

Project description:Previous research shows that many authors of Cochrane overviews were also involved in some of the included systematic reviews (SRs). This type of dual (co-)authorship (DCA) may be a conflict of interest and a potential source of bias. Our objectives were to (1) additionally investigate DCA in non-Cochrane overviews; (2) investigate whether there is an association between DCA and quality assessments of SRs in Cochrane and non-Cochrane overviews.We selected a sample of Cochrane (n =?20) and non-Cochrane (n =?78) overviews for analysis. We extracted data on the number of reviews affected by DCA and whether quality assessment of included reviews was conducted independently. Differences in mean quality scores between SRs with and without DCA were calculated in each overview. These differences were standardized (using the standardized mean difference (SMD)) and meta-analyzed using a random effects model.Forty out of 78 non-Cochrane overviews (51%) and 18 out of 20 Cochrane overviews (90%) had included at least one SR with DCA. For Cochrane overviews, a median of 5 [interquartile range (IQR) 2.5 to 7] SRs were affected by DCA (median of included reviews 10). For non-Cochrane overviews a median of 1 [IQR 0 to 2] of the included SRs were affected (median of included reviews 14). The meta-analysis showed a SMD of 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.90) indicating higher quality scores in reviews with overlapping authors. The test for subgroup differences shows no evidence of a difference between Cochrane (SMD 0.44; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.81) and non-Cochrane overviews (SMD 0.62; 95% CI 0.06 to 1.17).Many authors of overviews also often have an authorship on one or more of the underlying reviews. Our analysis shows that, on average, authors of overviews give higher quality ratings to SRs in which they were involved themselves than to other SRs. Conflict of interest is one explanation, but there are several others such as reviewer expertise. Independent and blinded reassessments of the reviews would provide more robust evidence on potential bias arising from DCA.

Project description:BackgroundThere have been public health interventions that aim to reduce barriers to health care access by extending opening hours of health care facilities. However, the impact of opening hours from the patient's perspective is not well understood.ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate the relationship between temporal accessibility of health care services and how patients rate the providers on Yelp, an online review website that is popular in the United States. Using crowdsourced open Internet data, such as Yelp, can help circumvent the traditional survey method.MethodsFrom Yelp's limited academic dataset, this study examined the pattern of visits to health care providers and performed a secondary analysis to examine the association between patient rating (measured by Yelp's rating) and temporal accessibility of health care services (measured by opening hours) using ordinal logistic regression models. Other covariates included were whether an appointment was required, the type of health care service, the region of the health care service provider, the number of reviews the health care service provider received in the past, the number of nearby competitors, the mean rating of competitors, and the standard deviation of competitors' ratings.ResultsFrom the 2085 health care service providers identified, opening hours during certain periods, the type of health care service, and the variability of competitors' ratings showed an association with patient rating. Most of the visits to health care service providers took place between normal working hours (9 AM-5 PM) from Sunday to Thursday, and the least on Saturday. A model fitted to the entire sample showed that increasing hours during normal working hours on Monday (OR 0.926, 95% CI 0.880-0.973, P=0.03), Saturday (OR 0.897, 95% CI 0.860-0.935, P<0.001), Sunday (OR 0.904, 95% CI 0.841-0.970, P=0.005), and outside normal working hours on Friday (OR 0.872, 95% CI 0.760-0.998, P=0.048) was associated with receiving lower ratings. But increasing hours during outside normal working hours on Sunday was associated with receiving higher ratings (OR 1.400, 95% CI 1.036-1.924, P=0.03). There were also observed differences in patient ratings among the health care services types, but not geographically or by appointment requirement.ConclusionsThis study shows that public health interventions, especially those involving opening hours, could use crowdsourced open Internet data to enhance the evidence base for decision making and evaluation in the future. This study illustrates one example of how Yelp data could be used to understand patient experiences with health care services, making a case for future research for exploring online reviews as a health dataset.