Analysis of Online Urologist Ratings: Are Rating Differences Associated With Subspecialty?

Overview

Journal J Patient Exp

Specialty Health Services

Date 2021 Jan 18

PMID 33457546

Authors

Jacqueline Zillioux

C William Pike

Devang Sharma

David E Rapp

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Patients are increasingly using online rating websites to obtain information about physicians and to provide feedback. We performed an analysis of urologist online ratings, with specific focus on the relationship between overall rating and urologist subspecialty. We conducted an analysis of urologist ratings on Healthgrades.com. Ratings were sampled across 4 US geographical regions, with focus across 3 practice types (large and small private practice, academic) and 7 urologic subspecialties. Statistical analysis was performed to assess for differences among subgroup ratings. Data were analyzed for 954 urologists with a mean age of 53 (±10) years. The median overall urologist rating was 4.0 [3.4-4.7]. Providers in an academic practice type or robotics/oncology subspecialty had statistically significantly higher ratings when compared to other practice settings or subspecialties ( < 0.001). All other comparisons between practice types, specialties, regions, and sexes failed to demonstrate statistically significant differences. In our study of online urologist ratings, robotics/oncology subspecialty and academic practice setting were associated with higher overall ratings. Further study is needed to assess reasons underlying this difference.

References

Daskivich T, Luu M, Noah B, Fuller G, Anger J, Spiegel B . Differences in Online Consumer Ratings of Health Care Providers Across Medical, Surgical, and Allied Health Specialties: Observational Study of 212,933 Providers. J Med Internet Res. 2018; 20(5):e176. PMC: 5980486. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.9160. View

McGrath R, Priestley J, Zhou Y, Culligan P . The Validity of Online Patient Ratings of Physicians: Analysis of Physician Peer Reviews and Patient Ratings. Interact J Med Res. 2018; 7(1):e8. PMC: 5913572. DOI: 10.2196/ijmr.9350. View

Kadry B, Chu L, Kadry B, Gammas D, Macario A . Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating. J Med Internet Res. 2011; 13(4):e95. PMC: 3222200. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1960. View

Segal J . The role of the Internet in doctor performance rating. Pain Physician. 2009; 12(3):659-64. View

Kupersmith J . Quality of care in teaching hospitals: a literature review. Acad Med. 2005; 80(5):458-66. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200505000-00012. View

Hawkins J, Brownstein J, Tuli G, Runels T, Broecker K, Nsoesie E . Measuring patient-perceived quality of care in US hospitals using Twitter. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015; 25(6):404-13. PMC: 4878682. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004309. View

Sobin L, Goyal P . Trends of online ratings of otolaryngologists: what do your patients really think of you?. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014; 140(7):635-8. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2014.818. View

Orhurhu M, Salisu B, Sottosanti E, Abimbola N, Urits I, Jones M . Chronic Pain Practices: An Evaluation of Positive and Negative Online Patient Reviews. Pain Physician. 2019; 22(5):E477-E486. View

Shahian D, Nordberg P, Meyer G, Blanchfield B, Mort E, Torchiana D . Contemporary performance of U.S. teaching and nonteaching hospitals. Acad Med. 2012; 87(6):701-8. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318253676a. View

10.

Hong Y, Liang C, Radcliff T, Wigfall L, Street R . What Do Patients Say About Doctors Online? A Systematic Review of Studies on Patient Online Reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2019; 21(4):e12521. PMC: 6475821. DOI: 10.2196/12521. View

11.

Chan C, Ahmad W . Differences in physician attitudes towards patient-centredness: across four medical specialties. Int J Clin Pract. 2011; 66(1):16-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02831.x. View

12.

Zandbelt L, Smets E, Oort F, Godfried M, de Haes H . Determinants of physicians' patient-centred behaviour in the medical specialist encounter. Soc Sci Med. 2006; 63(4):899-910. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.01.024. View

13.

Keeler E, Rubenstein L, Kahn K, Draper D, Harrison E, McGinty M . Hospital characteristics and quality of care. JAMA. 1992; 268(13):1709-14. View

14.

Gao G, McCullough J, Agarwal R, Jha A . A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients' online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period. J Med Internet Res. 2012; 14(1):e38. PMC: 3374528. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.2003. View

15.

Chan C, Azman W . Attitudes and role orientations on doctor-patient fit and patient satisfaction in cancer care. Singapore Med J. 2012; 53(1):52-6. View

16.

Casalino L, Pesko M, Ryan A, Mendelsohn J, Copeland K, Ramsay P . Small primary care physician practices have low rates of preventable hospital admissions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014; 33(9):1680-8. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0434. View

17.

Agarwal N, Faramand A, Bellon J, Borrebach J, Hamilton D, Okonkwo D . Limitations of patient experience reports to evaluate physician quality in spine surgery: analysis of 7485 surveys. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019; 30(4):520-523. DOI: 10.3171/2018.8.SPINE18104. View

18.

Kennedy G, Tevis S, Kent K . Is there a relationship between patient satisfaction and favorable outcomes?. Ann Surg. 2014; 260(4):592-8. PMC: 4159721. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000932. View

19.

Okike K, Peter-Bibb T, Xie K, Okike O . Association Between Physician Online Rating and Quality of Care. J Med Internet Res. 2016; 18(12):e324. PMC: 5192234. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.6612. View

20.

Chen J, Zou B, Shuster J . Relationship Between Patient Satisfaction And Physician Characteristics. J Patient Exp. 2017; 4(4):177-184. PMC: 5734516. DOI: 10.1177/2374373517714453. View