Factors Influencing Patients’ Perspectives of Radiology Imaging Centers: Evaluation Using an Online Social Media Ratings Website

Doshi, Ankur M.; Somberg, Molly B.; Rosenkrantz, Andrew B.

doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.08.020

Cited by 18 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A previous study reported that complaints regarding radiology staff member communications were nearly triple to those concerning treatment delays [ 20 ]. Other findings show concerns over professionalism were almost twice as frequent as those regarding waiting times [ 7 ]. Our study showed strongest correlations between PRSS and trustworthiness and the ability of physicians to answer patient questions, and explain conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On Healthgrades and other third-party sites, patients can score physicians for a variety of factors as well as give an overall satisfaction score, collectively referred to as patient review satisfaction scores (PRSS) [ 3 ]. Previous studies have evaluated PRSS across various specialties, including radiology and interventional radiology [ 7 - 8 ]. Prior work investigating PRSS in the field of radiation oncology (RO), however, has been limited by small sample sizes and brief surveys [ 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Do Patients Think About Their Radiation Oncologists? An Assessment of Online Patient Reviews on Healthgrades

Prabhu

Randhawa

Clump

et al. 2018

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionAn increasing number of patients search for their physicians online. Many hospital systems utilize Press-Ganey studies as internal tools to analyze patient satisfaction, but independent third-party websites have a large presence online. Patients’ trust in these third-party sites may occur despite a low number of reviews and a lack of validity of patients’ entries. Healthgrades.com has been shown as the most popular site to appear on Google searches for radiation oncologists (ROs) in the United States (US). The aim of this study was to analyze patient satisfaction scores and the factors that influence those scores for American ROs on Healthgrades.MethodsThe physician ratings website Healthgrades was manually queried to obtain reviews from all Medicare-participating ROs with reviews (n=2,679). Patient Review Satisfaction Scores (PRSS) were recorded in response to a variety of questions. All information in the survey was scored from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) for the following characteristics: likelihood to recommend (LTR), office environment, ease of scheduling, trust in the physician’s decision, staff friendliness, ability of the physician to listen and answer questions, ability of the physician to explain the condition, and whether the physician spent sufficient time with the patients. Associations amongst these factors were considered by computing Spearman correlation coefficients and utilizing Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests.ResultsThe ROs’ mean LTR score was 4.51±0.9 (median 5.0, 66% received the highest possible score of 5; 95% received a score>2). Patient reviews per RO ranged from 1 to 242 (4.50±0.9, median 2.0). LTR scores correlated very strongly with physician-related factors, ranging from r=0.85 (with appropriate time spent with patients) to r=0.89 (with level of trust in physician). LTR scores were not statistically significantly associated with gender, wait time, ROs’ years since graduation, academic status, or geographic region.ConclusionSatisfaction scores for ROs on a leading physician ratings website are very strong, and most patients leaving reviews are likely to recommend their own ROs to their friends and family. Understanding online ratings and identifying factors associated with positive ratings are important for both patients and ROs due to the recent growth in physician-rating third-party sites. ROs should have increased awareness regarding sites like Healthgrades and their online reputation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do Patients Think About Their Radiation Oncologists? An Assessment of Online Patient Reviews on Healthgrades

Prabhu

Randhawa

Clump

et al. 2018

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wait time was not significantly correlated with OR, in contrast with previous work highlighting the impact of RO wait time on patient satisfaction with their physicians [ 17 - 20 ]. Previous research has indicated that patient complaints over professionalism were more prevalent than complaints over wait time [ 21 , 22 ]. Matthews et al found that physicians-related factors like interpersonal skills, coordination of care, and timeliness of care shaped patients' satisfaction with their wait times [ 23 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do Patients Rate Their Radiation Oncologists in the Modern Era: An Analysis of Vitals.com

Randhawa

Viqar

Strother

et al. 2018

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe popularity of online physician rating websites has risen substantially. These third-party sites have the potential to significantly influence patients’ perception of their healthcare providers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate online ratings of U.S. radiation oncologists (ROs) on Vitals.com, one of the most popular physician rating websites, and the variables that most significantly affect patients’ overall rating (OR) of their ROs. MethodsThe Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Physician Comparable Downloadable File was analyzed to obtain data on all self-identified ROs in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. Patient Review Satisfaction Scores (PRSS) that ranged from one (poor) to five (excellent) for the following variables were recorded: OR, accurate diagnosis, spending appropriate time with patients, ease of appointment, courteous staff, bedside manner, follow-up after visit, promptness, and wait time. Associations among these factors were assessed. ResultsOf 4,443 self-identifying Medicare-accepting ROs, 1,797 (40.4%) ROs who had at least one OR rating and at least one written comment were included in this study. The ROs’ mean OR was 4.34 ± 0.2 (median 4; 30% received a score of 5; 78% received a score greater than 4). OR was found to have a strong correlation with accuracy of diagnosis (r = 0.69), bedside manner (r = 0.71), and spends appropriate time with patients (r = 0.69). With the exception of the number of ratings (p = 0.07), physicians with over 10 years of experience showed statistically significant differences in how much better they scored in each of the variables compared to those with less than 10 years of experience (p < 0.01 for each characteristic). Significant differences in OR were also observed between ROs whose wait times exceeded 20 minutes compared to those with wait times less than 10 minutes (p < 0.01) for all internal and external metrics except for the number of ratings (p = 0.42) and number of reviews (p = 0.88)ConclusionPatients are providing high ratings for their ROs on Vitals.com and are more frequently recommending them to friends and family. Given the rise in popularity of third-party physician rating sites, it is important for ROs to understand the various factors that may influence their online ratings.

show abstract

“…To our knowledge, however, there is a paucity of studies related to this topic. Most previous studies [3][4][5][6] have been focussing on patients' experiences in radiology departments rather than on the performance of individual radiologists. Therefore, more research is needed to understand how patients value their radiologist.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communication and empathy skills: Essential requisites for patient-centered radiology care

Kwee

2021

European Journal of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate how patients value radiologists, using data from the Dutch healthcare assessment website. Method: The Dutch healthcare assessment website was searched for patient reviews about radiologists in The Netherlands. The scores (scale of 1-10) assigned to the most recent review of each radiologist were extracted. All written reviews were assessed using standardized coding taxonomy, in the domains "clinical competencies" (including quality and safety of clinical care) and "relationships" (including communication with patients and humaneness/caring). For each category, it was assessed whether the review was positive or negative with regard to the performance of the radiologist. Results: 217 of 941 radiologists (23 %) had been reviewed between 2017 and 2021. The total number of institutions to which these radiologists were affiliated was 75 (6 academic and 69 non-academic institutions). Median score assigned to each review was 9.6 (interquartile range 1.3, range 1-10). 74 of 217 radiologists (34 %) were given a maximum review score of 10. 29 of 217 radiologists (13 %) were given a review score of 5 or lower. The far majority of reviews concerned the categories communication (36 % of all positive patient reviews and 30 % of all negative patient reviews) and humaneness/caring (45 % of all positive patient reviews and 49 % of all negative patient reviews). Conclusion: Radiologists are generally highly valued by patients, although there is room for improvement to decrease the number of negative patient experiences. Communication and empathy appear to be the most important skills on which radiologists are judged from a patient's perspective.

show abstract

Factors Influencing Patients’ Perspectives of Radiology Imaging Centers: Evaluation Using an Online Social Media Ratings Website

Cited by 18 publications

References 13 publications

What Do Patients Think About Their Radiation Oncologists? An Assessment of Online Patient Reviews on Healthgrades

What Do Patients Think About Their Radiation Oncologists? An Assessment of Online Patient Reviews on Healthgrades

How Do Patients Rate Their Radiation Oncologists in the Modern Era: An Analysis of Vitals.com

Communication and empathy skills: Essential requisites for patient-centered radiology care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About