Analysis of Patients' Online Reviews of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
Journal
Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews
ISSN: 2474-7661
Titre abrégé: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101724868
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2022
01 10 2022
Historique:
received:
24
02
2022
accepted:
29
07
2022
entrez:
3
2
2023
pubmed:
4
2
2023
medline:
8
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Physician rating websites (PRWs) are an increasingly popular interface between patient and surgeon. Despite the growing popularity of PRWs, little guidance exists for orthopaedic surgeons regarding online reviews. We analyzed online ratings and comments to provide a better understanding of patients' values and expectations so that surgeons can tailor their practice accordingly to enhance their clinical care and online reputation. Three common PRWs (Vitals, HealthGrades, and RateMDs) were queried from January 1, 2006, to May 18, 2020. Publicly available ratings, both quantitative (1 to 5 stars) and qualitative (free text comments), were collected. Comments were qualitatively tabulated as having positive or negative assessments for categories including outcome, personality, staff, surgical skill, visit time, bedside manner, wait time, diagnosis, knowledge, treatment, and advanced practice providers and analyzed using chi square goodness of fit. Quantitative comparisons of star ratings were made across surgeon years in practice, sex, practice setting, and PRW and compared using chi square independence testing. In total, 81% of patient comments were found to have a positive assessment. Comments regarding outcome (P < 0.001), staff (P = 0.001), surgical skill (P < 0.001), or knowledge (P = 0.001) were more likely to be positive. Reviews regarding bedside manner (P < 0.001), wait time (P < 0.001), diagnosis (P < 0.001), treatment (P < 0.001), or advanced practice providers (P < 0.001) were more likely to be negative. Surgeon sex was not associated with a difference in quantitative ratings (P = 0.131), unlike practice setting (P < 0.001) and PRW (P < 0.001). PRWs are a growing interface between surgeon and patient with a considerable effect on surgeon marketability. This study reveals a statistical association between certain patient-centered medical practices and positive patient reviews. This emphasizes the importance of ensuring that high standards are maintained throughout a physician's practice of maintaining a constant awareness of the fundamentals for effective patient care and of taking care to curate a physician's online presence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36734653
doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00074
pii: 01979360-202210000-00006
pmc: PMC9584189
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
Références
Foot Ankle Spec. 2020 Feb;13(1):43-49
pubmed: 30795702
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2014 Aug;43(8):359-63
pubmed: 25136868
Global Spine J. 2018 Oct;8(7):728-732
pubmed: 30443484
JBJS Rev. 2020 Mar;8(3):e0158
pubmed: 32224636
J Arthroplasty. 2020 May;35(5):1432-1436
pubmed: 31973969
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Sep;32(9):2905-2910
pubmed: 28455178
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 Jun 15;43(12):E722-E726
pubmed: 29846366
Orthopedics. 2021 Mar-Apr;44(2):e281-e286
pubmed: 33316825
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun;27(6):685-92
pubmed: 22215270
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Aug 28;15(8):e187
pubmed: 23985220
J Hand Surg Am. 2016 Jan;41(1):98-103
pubmed: 26710742
JAMA. 2014 Feb 19;311(7):734-5
pubmed: 24549555
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Dec 07;10:332
pubmed: 21138579
Orthopedics. 2015 Apr;38(4):e257-62
pubmed: 25901617
Virtual Mentor. 2013 Nov 01;15(11):932-6
pubmed: 24257083