Analysis of Internet Review Site Comments for Spine Surgeons

Donnally, Chester J.; Roth, Eric S.; Li, Deborah J.; Maguire, James; McCormick, Johnathon R.; Barker, Grant P.; Rivera, Sebastian; Lebwohl, Nathan H.

doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000002740

Cited by 34 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This generally favorable rating along with overall positive written comments is consistent with previous findings for orthopaedic surgeons as a whole as well as for those in other surgical fields. 17,19-22 Interestingly, a high percentage (84%) of the total number of ratings was either a 1-star (17% of total) or a 5-star (67%) rating. This pattern has been shown in previous studies and suggests that patients who perceive extremes of care are more likely to rate a physician online.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These findings are consistent with previous studies that also found correlations between positive comments and surgeon-dependent factors (eg, surgical outcome, surgeon likeability/character). 20-22…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Surgeons within a 50-mile radius of the location were randomly selected for review; 210 surgeons were chosen for evaluation based on prior published studies examining a similar number of surgeons. 17,21 Demographic information, ratings, and comments were reviewed on the 3 most visited public domain physician rating websites 18 —HealthGrades.com (HealthGrades), Vitals.com (Vitals), and Ratemds.com (Ratemds)—between July 18 and August 8, 2018. Demographic information obtained from rating websites included physician gender, age, and year of graduation from medical school.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior studies have demonstrated that positive comments relate more to surgeon-dependent factors (eg, clinical outcome, professional competence) and negative comments reflect more surgeon-independent factors. 20-22 These prior reports found that doctors are generally well liked with high ratings, but they fail to acknowledge that the review system is highly skewed and does not represent a normal distribution of patient experience. Often rather, these reviews capture the very displeased patients who wish to vent and the very happy who desire to praise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…18,19 Moreover, there has been little evaluation of the content of the written comments describing patients’ experience with the physician. 20-22…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Online Ratings and Reviews of American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgeons

Velasco

Chien

Kwon

et al. 2019

Foot & Ankle Specialist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Utilization of physician rating websites continues to expand. There is limited information on how these websites function and influence patient perception and physicians’ practices. No study to our knowledge has investigated online ratings and comments of orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons. We identified factors impacting online ratings and comments for this subset of surgeons. Methods. 210 orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons were selected from the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) website. Demographic information, ratings, and comments were reviewed on the 3 most visited public domain physician ratings websites: HealthGrades.com , Vitals.com, and Ratemds.com. Content differences between positive and negative comments were evaluated. Results. The mean review rating of 4.03 ± 0.57 out of 5 stars. 84% of the total number of ratings were either 1 star (17%) or 5 stars (67%). Most positive comments related to outcome, physician personality, and communication, whereas most negative comments related to outcome, bedside manner, and waiting time. χ2 Analyses revealed statistically significant proportions of positive comments pertaining to surgeon-dependent factors (eg, physician personality, knowledge, skills) and negative comments concerning surgeon-independent factors (eg, waiting time, logistics). Conclusion. This study examined online ratings and written comments of orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons. Surgeons had a generally favorable rating and were likely to have positive comments. Patients were likely to write positive comments about surgeon personality and communication, and negative comments pertaining to bedside manner and waiting time. Knowledge and management of online content may allow surgeons to improve patient satisfaction and online ratings. Level of Evidence: Level IV

show abstract