Characterizing negative reviews of orthopedic spine surgeons and practices.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Recent evidence suggests that patients prefer subjective and crowd-sourced information over data-driven or quality-based outcomes when choosing a surgeon. Online physician rating and review websites continue to increase in popularity, and over half of patients use them to research physicians. Specifically, Yelp.com is the most frequently utilized online resource by patients. Data regarding the characteristics of negative reviews for spine surgeons and practices is lacking.Methods
Orthopedic Spine surgeons and practices in 8 major US metropolitan regions were surveyed for one-star reviews on Yelp.com. The factors noted in the reviews were recorded and they were classified according to their clinical or nonclinical nature. Reviews were also subclassified into nonsurgical or surgical episodes of care.Results
A total of 6,286 Yelp reviews were discovered, 671 (10.6%) of which were rated one-star. The majority of negative reviews (76.4%) were from patients who did not report surgery by the surgeon or practice. Of all comments, 491 (77.6%) related to nonclinical complaints. The most common factors noted in negative reviews were related to bedside manner, rude or unprofessional staff, and wait time.Conclusion
Choosing a surgeon is a complex process for patients. The large majority of negative reviews were related to nonclinical issues such as poor bedside manner or rude staff and most of these were written by patients that did not undergo a surgical procedure. This may explain the large discrepancy that has been observed between quality metrics and online crowd-sourced reviews. Paying attention to these nonclinical factors may represent the most feasible and valuable targets to improve a surgeon's practice and attract future patients.
SUBMITTER: Brinkman JC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9213250 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background:Although physicians tend to prefer data-driven quality metrics, emerging evidence suggests that patients prefer crowd-sourced information containing patient narrative descriptions of the care experience. Currently, yelp.com is the most commonly accessed Web resource among patients who use online information to choose a surgeon. The purpose of this study is to characterize extremely negative reviews of total joint arthroplasty surgeons and practices on yelp.com. Methods:We searched yelp.com for one-star (out of 5) reviews of total joint providers and practices in 8 major US metropolitan areas. These reviews were then classified into categories based on content: clinical, nonclinical, or both. Reviews were further subcategorized as "surgical" and "nonsurgical" representing reviews of a nonsurgical experience (eg, initial office visit). Results:A higher proportion of reviews came from patients who did not report prior surgery by the surgeon or practice named in the review than form those who reported surgery (240 reviews, 75.0%, 95% confidence interval: 70.0%-79.4% vs 80 reviews, 25.0%, 95% confidence interval: 20.6%-30.0%, P < .0001). Compared with surgical reviews, nonsurgical reviews were more likely to contain nonclinical complaints (92.1% vs 53.8%, P < .0001) and less likely to contain clinical complaints (21.3% vs 78.7%, P < .0001). Conclusions:The vast majority of extremely negative reviews of total joint arthroplasty surgeons and practices were related to nonclinical concerns posted by patients who did not report prior surgery by the surgeon or practice being reviewed. The results of this study may help explain the wide disparity commonly observed between conventional quality metrics and crowd-sourced online reviews.
| S-EPMC6588800 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveResource allocation to research activities is challenging and there is limited evidence to justify decisions. Members of AO Spine were surveyed to understand the research practices and needs of spine surgeons worldwide.MethodsAn 84-item survey was distributed to the AO Spine community in September of 2020. Respondent demographics and insights regarding research registries, training and education, mentorship, grants and financial support, and future directions were collected. Responses were anonymous and compared among regions.ResultsA total of 333 spine surgeons representing all geographic regions responded; 52.3% were affiliated with an academic/university hospital, 91.0% conducted clinical research, and 60.9% had 5+ years of research experience. There was heterogeneity among research practices and needs across regions. North American respondents had more research experience (P = .023), began conducting research early on (P < .001), had an undergraduate science degree (P < .001), and were more likely to have access to a research coordinator or support staff (P = .042) compared to other regions. While all regions expressed having the same challenges in conducting research, Latin America, and Middle East/Northern Africa respondents were less encouraged to do research (P < .001). Despite regional differences, there was global support for research registries and research training and education.ConclusionTo advance spine care worldwide, spine societies should establish guidelines, conduct studies on pain management, and support predictive analytic modeling. Tailoring local/regional programs according to regional needs is advised. These results can assist spine societies in developing long-term research strategies and provide justified rationale to governments and funding agencies.
| S-EPMC10556911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to analyse the variability among Turkish spinal surgeons in the management of thoracolumbar fractures by carrying out a web survey.An invitation text and web-link of the survey were sent to the members of the Turkish Spine Society mail group. A fictitious spine trauma vignette, a 23 year-old male with a L1 burst fracture, was presented and 25 questions were asked to participants. Variability of answers in a given question was assessed with the Index of Qualitative Variation (IQV). Questions with high IQV values (>%80) were selected to evaluate the relation between participant factors (speciality, age, degree and experience level of the surgeon, type of the work centre and volume of the trauma patients).Sixty-four (88%) among the 73 participating surgeons completed the survey. 45 (70%) of them were orthopaedic surgeons and 19 (30%) were neurosurgeons. 11 questions had very high variability (IQV ? 0.80), 5 had high variability (0.58-0.75) and 2 had low variability (IQV?0.20). The question with the highest variability was related to the use of brace after surgery (IQV = 0.93). Following one was about the selection of fixation levels (IQV = 0.91). Neurosurgeons were more likely to use brace postoperatively and professors were less likely to perform decompression.This survey shows that thoracolumbar spine trauma practice significantly varies among Turkish spine surgeons. Surgeons' characteristics affected some specific answers. Lack of enough knowledge about spine trauma care, fracture classifications and surgical techniques and/or ethical factors may be other reasons for this variability.
| S-EPMC6136338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is limited data available on the use of orthoses across varying elective spine surgeries. When previously studied in 2009, inconsistent lumbar postoperative bracing practices were reported. The present study aimed to provide a ten-year update regarding postoperative bracing practices after elective lumbar surgery among United States (U.S.) spine surgeons.MethodsA questionnaire was distributed to attendees of the Lumbar Spine Research Society Annual Meeting (April 2019). The questionnaire collected demographic information, and asked surgeons to identify if they used orthoses postoperatively after ten elective lumbar surgeries. Information regarding type of brace, duration of use, and reason for bracing was also collected. Chi-square tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for comparisons.ResultsSeventy-three of 88 U.S. attending surgeons completed the questionnaire (response rate: 83%). The majority of respondents were orthopaedic surgery-trained (78%), fellowship-trained (84%), and academic surgeons (73%). The majority of respondents (60%) did not use orthoses after any lumbar surgery. Among the surgeons who braced, the overall bracing frequency was 26%. This rate was significantly lower than that reported in the literature ten years earlier (p<0.0001). Respondents tended to use orthoses most often after stand-alone lateral interbody fusions (43%) (p<0.0001). The average bracing frequency after lumbar fusions (34%) was higher than the average bracing frequency after non-fusion surgeries (16%) (p<0.0001). The most frequently utilized brace was an off the shelf lumbar sacral orthosis (66%), and most surgeons braced patients to improve pain (42%). Of surgeons who braced, most commonly did so for 2-4 months (57%).ConclusionMost surgeon respondents did not prescribe orthoses after varying elective lumbar surgeries, and the frequency overall was lower than a similar study conducted in 2009. There continues to be inconsistencies in postoperative bracing practices. In an era striving for evidence-based practices, this is an area needing more attention.
| S-EPMC8820027 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study designQuestionnaire-based survey.ObjectivesSurgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication in spine surgery but universal guidelines for SSI prevention are lacking. The objectives of this study are to depict a global status quo on implemented prevention strategies in spine surgery, common themes of practice and determine key areas for future research.MethodsAn 80-item survey was distributed among spine surgeons worldwide via email. The questionnaire was designed and approved by an International Consensus Group on spine SSI. Consensus was defined as more than 60% of participants agreeing to a specific prevention strategy.ResultsFour hundred seventy-two surgeons participated in the survey. Screening for Staphylococcus aureus (SA) is not common, whereas preoperative decolonization is performed in almost half of all hospitals. Body mass index (BMI) was not important for surgery planning. In contrast, elevated HbA1c level and hypoalbuminemia were often considered as reasons to postpone surgery. Cefazoline is the common drug for antimicrobial prophylaxis. Alcohol-based chlorhexidine is mainly used for skin disinfection. Double-gloving, wound irrigation, and tissue-conserving surgical techniques are routine in the operating room (OR). Local antibiotic administration is not common. Wound closure techniques and postoperative wound dressing routines vary greatly between the participating institutions.ConclusionsWith this study we provide an international overview on the heterogeneity of SSI prevention strategies in spine surgery. We demonstrated a large heterogeneity for pre-, peri- and postoperative measures to prevent SSI. Our data illustrated the need for developing universal guidelines and for testing areas of controversy in prospective clinical trials.
| S-EPMC10556889 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsArthroplasty 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.
| S-EPMC8217335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDigital media is an effective tool to enhance brand recognition and is currently referenced by more than 40% of orthopedic patients when selecting a physician. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of social media among foot and ankle (F&A) orthopedic surgeons, and the impact of that social media presence on scores of a physician-rated website (PRW).MethodsRandomly selected F&A orthopedic surgeons from all major geographical locations across the United States were identified using the AAOS.org website. Internet searches were then performed using the physician's name and the respective social media platform. A comprehensive social media use index (SMI) was created for each surgeon using a scoring system based on social media platform use. The use of individual platforms and SMI was compared to the F&A surgeon's Healthgrades scores. Descriptive statistics, unpaired Student t tests, and linear regression were used to assess the effect of social media on the PRW scores.ResultsA total of 123 board-certified F&A orthopedic surgeons were included in our study demonstrating varying social media use: Facebook (48.8%), Twitter (15.4%), YouTube (23.6%), LinkedIn (47.9%), personal website (24.4%), group website (52.9%), and Instagram (0%). The mean SMI was 2.4 ± 1.6 (range 0-7). Surgeons who used a Facebook page were older, whereas those using a group website were younger (P < .05). F&A orthopedic surgeons with a YouTube page had statistically higher Healthgrades scores compared to those without (P < .05).ConclusionF&A orthopedic surgeons underused social media platforms in their clinical practice. Among all the platforms studied, a YouTube page was the most impactful social media platform on Healthgrades scores for F&A orthopedic surgeons. Given these findings, we recommend that physicians closely monitor their digital identity and maintain a diverse social media presence including a YouTube page to promote their clinical practice.Level of evidenceLevel IV.
| S-EPMC8702771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ongoing outbreak of COVID-19, also known as SARS-CoV-2 and coronavirus disease 2019, is considered a major public concern that propagates steadily by the increased number of the infected cases and the mortality rate. In this article, we provide a brief review for Orthopedic surgeons as regard COVID-19 virus microbiology, epidemiology, clinical picture, and diagnosis. Moreover, what measures should be taken amid this pandemic to assess its control, maintain the urgent duties, and protect health care workers (HCW) are also discussed.
| S-EPMC7237925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the degree of interest in robot-assisted spine surgery (RASS) among residents and to investigate the learning curve for beginners performing robotic surgery.MethodsWe conducted a survey to assess awareness and interest in RASS among young neurosurgery residents. Subsequently, we offered a hands-on training program using a dummy to educate one resident. After completing the program, the trained resident performed spinal fusion surgery with robotic assistance under the supervision of a mentor. The clinical outcomes and learning curve associated with robotic surgery were then analyzed.ResultsNeurosurgical residents had limited opportunities to participate in spinal surgery during their training. Despite this, there was a significant interest in the emerging field of robotic surgery. A trained resident performed RASS under the supervision of a senior surgeon. A total of 166 screw insertions were attempted in 28 patients, with 2 screws failing due to skiving. According to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification, 85.54% of the screws were rated as grade A, 11.58% as grade B, 0.6% as grade C, and 1.2% as grade D. The clinical acceptance rate was approximately 96.99%, which is comparable to the results reported by senior experts and time per screw statistically significantly decreased as experience was gained.ConclusionRASS can be performed with high accuracy within a relatively short timeframe, if residents receive adequate training.
| S-EPMC10992654 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Previous studies have reported what patients value while choosing their surgeon, but there are no studies exploring the patterns of referral to spine surgeons among primary care physicians (PCPs). This study aims to identify any trends in PCPs' referral to orthopedic surgery versus neurosurgery for spinal pathology. Methods:In total, 450 internal medicine, family medicine, emergency medicine, neurology, and pain management physicians who practice at one of three locations (suburban community hospital, urban academic university hospital, and urban private practice) were asked to participate in the study. Consenting physicians completed our 24-question survey addressing their beliefs according to pathologies, locations of pathologies, and surgical interventions. Results:Overall, 108 physicians (24%) completed our survey. Fifty-seven physicians (52.8%) felt that neurosurgeons would provide better long-term comprehensive spinal care. Overall, 66.7% of physicians would refer to neurosurgery for cervical spine radiculopathy; 52.8%, to neurosurgery for thoracic spine radiculopathy; and 56.5%, to orthopedics for lumbar spine radiculopathy. Most physicians would refer all spine fractures to orthopedics for treatment except cervical spine fractures (56.5% to neurosurgeons). Most physicians would refer to neurosurgery for extradural tumors (91.7%) and intradural tumors (96.3%). Most would refer to orthopedic surgeons for chronic pain. Finally, physicians would refer to orthopedics for spine fusion (61.1%) and discectomy (58.3%) and to neurosurgery for minimally invasive surgery (59.3%). Conclusions:Even though both orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons are intensively trained to treat a similar breath of spinal pathology, physicians vary in their referring patterns according to spinal pathology, location of pathology, and intended surgery. Education on the role of spine surgeons among PCPs is essential in ensuring unbiased referral patterns.
| S-EPMC7031437 | biostudies-literature