Characterizing negative reviews of orthopedic spine surgeons and practices.
Online
Physician ratings
Physician reviews
Quality
Reimbursement
Social media
Journal
North American Spine Society journal
ISSN: 2666-5484
Titre abrégé: N Am Spine Soc J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918335076906676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
23
04
2022
revised:
13
05
2022
accepted:
13
05
2022
entrez:
27
6
2022
pubmed:
28
6
2022
medline:
28
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
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
UNASSIGNED
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
UNASSIGNED
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
UNASSIGNED
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35755018
doi: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2022.100126
pii: S2666-5484(22)00029-4
pmc: PMC9213250
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100126Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of North American Spine Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Man Ther. 2002 Aug;7(3):168-72
pubmed: 12372313
Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1998 Jun;281:28-31
pubmed: 9771538
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Aug 22;19(8):e254
pubmed: 28830852
Global Spine J. 2017 May;7(3):213-219
pubmed: 28660102
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Jan 1;37(1):67-76
pubmed: 21311399
Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2019 May 15;12:85-89
pubmed: 31191060
J Hand Surg Am. 2016 Jan;41(1):104-10.e1
pubmed: 26304734
HSS J. 2018 Jul;14(2):177-180
pubmed: 29983660
Orthopedics. 2015 Apr;38(4):e257-62
pubmed: 25901617
Man Ther. 1997 Aug;2(3):132-143
pubmed: 11440526
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Aug;27(8):619-624
pubmed: 29133461
N Engl J Med. 2001 Feb 1;344(5):363-70
pubmed: 11172169
Med Care Res Rev. 2007 Apr;64(2):169-90
pubmed: 17406019
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017 Jun;10(2):278-279
pubmed: 28456946
JAMA Surg. 2017 Apr 1;152(4):410-411
pubmed: 28052162
JAMA. 2008 Feb 13;299(6):656-64
pubmed: 18270354
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Sep;32(9):2905-2910
pubmed: 28455178
Arthroplast Today. 2019 Apr 10;5(2):216-220
pubmed: 31286047
J Hand Surg Am. 2016 Jan;41(1):98-103
pubmed: 26710742
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Jun 15;19(12):1307-9
pubmed: 8066508
JAMA. 2014 Feb 19;311(7):734-5
pubmed: 24549555
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jul 10;371(2):99-101
pubmed: 24869599
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Feb;443:139-46
pubmed: 16462438
JAMA Dermatol. 2016 Feb;152(2):153-7
pubmed: 26606326
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Sep;32(9):2694-2700
pubmed: 28456560