What Makes a 5-Star Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Surgeon? An Analysis of Positive Online Patient Reviews

Overview

Journal Orthop J Sports Med

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2023 Jul 17

PMID 37457044

Authors

Morgan E Noel

Nicolas P Kuttner

Zachary Lebaron

Evan H Richman

Sailesh Tummala

Joseph C Brinkman

Anikar Chhabra

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The increased focus on patient satisfaction has led to growth in the use of physician rating websites.

Purpose: To analyze the factors associated with online 5-star patient reviews for orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons.

Study Design: Cross-sectional study.

Methods: A total of 70 orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons were randomly selected from the AOSSM website. A search was performed for these surgeons on Yelp.com. All reviews other than 5 stars (of a possible 5 stars) were excluded from the study. Each review was categorized as referring to a surgical or nonsurgical aspect of care, and each comment within the review was categorized as being clinically or nonclinically related. Comments were further subcategorized by specific features such as bedside manner, clinical outcomes, and patient education. Categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square test.

Results: Overall, 400 five-star reviews were included in the study, comprising 1225 total positive comments. Of the 400 five-star reviews, 200 (50%) were from surgically treated patients, and 200 (50%) were from nonsurgically treated patients. Of the 1225 positive comments, 505 (41%) were clinically related, and 720 (59%) were nonclinical. The most common positive clinical comments were for clear treatment plans (191 reviews [48%]), good outcomes (173 reviews [43%]), and providing alternative treatment plans (55 reviews [14%]). The most common positive nonclinical comments were for good physician bedside manner (287 reviews [72%]), friendly/professional staff (194 reviews [49%]), and ease of scheduling (68 reviews [17%]).

Conclusion: The majority of 5-star patient reviews left positive comments regarding nonclinical aspects of care such as physician bedside manner and friendly staff. The most common positive comments regarding clinical aspects concerned good outcomes and clear treatment plans. The overall most common positive comment, in both surgically and nonsurgically treated patients, referred to good bedside manner.

Citing Articles

Categorizing Extremely Positive Five-Star Online Reviews for Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Surgeons: A Retrospective Study.

Anastasio A, Baumann A, Kiwinda L, Ruderman L, Hitchman K, Hanselman A Cureus. 2024; 16(10):e71932.

PMID: 39564028 PMC: 11576059. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.71932.

References

Donnally C, McCormick J, Li D, Maguire J, Barker G, Rush A . How do physician demographics, training, social media usage, online presence, and wait times influence online physician review scores for spine surgeons?. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018; 30(2):279-288. DOI: 10.3171/2018.8.SPINE18553. View

Murphy G, Radadia K, Breyer B . Online physician reviews: is there a place for them?. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2019; 12:85-89. PMC: 6526774. DOI: 10.2147/RMHP.S170381. View

Pollock J, Arthur J, Smith J, Mujahed T, Brinkman J, Moore M . The Majority of Complaints About Orthopedic Sports Surgeons on Yelp Are Nonclinical. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2021; 3(5):e1465-e1472. PMC: 8551418. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.07.008. View

Liu C, Uffenheimer M, Nasseri Y, Cohen J, Ellenhorn J . "But His Yelp Reviews Are Awful!": Analysis of General Surgeons' Yelp Reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2019; 21(4):e11646. PMC: 6658237. DOI: 10.2196/11646. View

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

Bernstein D, Mesfin A . Physician-Review Websites in Orthopaedic Surgery. JBJS Rev. 2020; 8(3):e0158. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.19.00158. View

Trehan S, Nguyen J, Marx R, Cross M, Pan T, Daluiski A . Online Patient Ratings Are Not Correlated with Total Knee Replacement Surgeon-Specific Outcomes. HSS J. 2018; 14(2):177-180. PMC: 6031536. DOI: 10.1007/s11420-017-9600-6. View

Yu J, Samuel L, Yalcin S, Sultan A, Kamath A . Patient-Recorded Physician Ratings: What Can We Learn From 11,527 Online Reviews of Orthopedic Surgeons?. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 35(6S):S364-S367. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.11.021. View

Qiu C, Hockney S, Turin S, Dorfman R, Kim J . A Quantitative Analysis of Online Plastic Surgeon Reviews for Abdominoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019; 143(3):734-742. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005320. View

10.

Chen J, Presson A, Zhang C, Ray D, Finlayson S, Glasgow R . Online physician review websites poorly correlate to a validated metric of patient satisfaction. J Surg Res. 2018; 227:1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.01.037. View

11.

Heimdal T, Gardner S, Dhanani U, Harris J, Liberman S, McCulloch P . Factors Affecting Orthopedic Sports Medicine Surgeons' Online Reputation. Orthopedics. 2020; 44(2):e281-e286. DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20201210-07. View

12.

Lopez A, Detz A, Ratanawongsa N, Sarkar U . What patients say about their doctors online: a qualitative content analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2012; 27(6):685-92. PMC: 3358396. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-011-1958-4. View

13.

Nwachukwu B, Adjei J, Trehan S, Chang B, Amoo-Achampong K, Nguyen J . Rating a Sports Medicine Surgeon's "Quality" in the Modern Era: an Analysis of Popular Physician Online Rating Websites. HSS J. 2016; 12(3):272-277. PMC: 5026665. DOI: 10.1007/s11420-016-9520-x. View

14.

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

15.

Emmert M, Sander U, Esslinger A, Maryschok M, Schoffski O . Public reporting in Germany: the content of physician rating websites. Methods Inf Med. 2011; 51(2):112-20. DOI: 10.3414/ME11-01-0045. View

16.

Sequist T, Schneider E, Anastario M, Odigie E, Marshall R, Rogers W . Quality monitoring of physicians: linking patients' experiences of care to clinical quality and outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2008; 23(11):1784-90. PMC: 2585686. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-008-0760-4. View

17.

Zeckhauser R, Sommers B . Consumerism in health care: challenges and opportunities. Virtual Mentor. 2013; 15(11):988-92. DOI: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2013.15.11.oped1-1311. View

18.

Langerhuizen D, Brown L, Doornberg J, Ring D, Kerkhoffs G, Janssen S . Analysis of Online Reviews of Orthopaedic Surgeons and Orthopaedic Practices Using Natural Language Processing. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020; 29(8):337-344. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-20-00288. View

19.

Mehta S . Patient Satisfaction Reporting and Its Implications for Patient Care. AMA J Ethics. 2015; 17(7):616-21. DOI: 10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.7.ecas3-1507. View

20.

Hanauer D, Zheng K, Singer D, Gebremariam A, Davis M . Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites. JAMA. 2014; 311(7):734-5. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.283194. View