Characterizing Negative Online Reviews of Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgeons

Online ratings and narrative comments of American Head and Neck Society surgeons

BACKGROUND

We analyzed online rating scores and comments of head and neck surgeons to understand factors that contribute to higher ratings.

METHODS

Numerical ratings and comments for American Head and Neck Society physicians were extracted from Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and Yelp, with narrative comments categorized based on content. Physician practice location, education, and residency training were also compiled.

RESULTS

Patient ratings were significantly higher with supportive staff and affable physician demeanor but showed significant drops with longer wait times and difficulties scheduling appointments or follow-ups. Physician education and postgraduate training did not significantly affect ratings.

CONCLUSION

Online ratings and comments correlated to modifiable factors in clinical practice and may be informative in understanding patient needs.

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

Background Multiple studies have emphasized the increased use of physician rating websites by patients when searching for surgeons to perform elective procedures. This study aimed to analyze the comments associated with online five-star patient reviews for orthopedic foot and ankle surgeons. Methods A retrospective analysis of five-star online reviews and corresponding comments using Vitals.com in 2024 was completed. Surgeons were included if they could be found on Vitals.com, were within a 10-mile radius of one of the top 10 largest cities in the United States, and if they had at least one review with one corresponding comment. Comments were further stratified into the following categories: good outcomes, well-controlled pain, correct diagnosis, clear plan, bedside manner/patient experience, staff compliment, wait time, nice facility, and offering a nonsurgical option. Results In a sampling of 2,425 orthopedic foot and ankle surgeons, 148 physicians (6.1%) had at least one review with one comment. Ultimately, 1,833 five-star reviews comprising 3,215 comments were included in the final analysis. Comments stratified by category revealed the most common comments being related to good outcomes (n = 940; 29.2%) and bedside manner/patient experience (n = 921; 28.6%). From the comments related to bedside manner/patient experience (p < 0.001) and presence of a clear plan (p < 0.001), a significantly higher proportion of comments in the nonoperative group was found relative to the operative group. Conversely, from the comments related to well-controlled pain (p < 0.001), a significantly higher proportion of comments in the operative group was found relative to the nonoperative group. Conclusions The most common reasons behind five-star patient comments for orthopedic foot and ankle surgeons were related to good outcomes and bedside manner/patient experience. Comments from surgical patients were most likely to include mention of well-controlled pain, whereas comments from patients who underwent nonoperative care were more likely to center on bedside manner/patient experience and presence of a clear plan.

What Patients Say About Their Orthopaedic Hand and Wrist Surgeons: A Qualitative Analysis of Negative Reviews on Yelp

Background  Patients often turn to online reviews as a source of information to inform their decisions regarding care. Existing literature has analyzed factors associated with positive online patient ratings among hand and wrist surgeons. However, there is limited in-depth analysis of factors associated with low patient satisfaction for hand and wrist surgeons. The focus of this study is to examine and characterize extremely negative reviews of hand and wrist surgeons on Yelp.com. Methods  A search was performed using the keywords "hand surgery" on Yelp.com for eight major metropolitan areas including Washington DC, Dallas, New York, Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, and Seattle. Only single-star reviews (out of a possible 5 stars) of hand and wrist surgeons were included. The complaints in the 1-star reviews were then categorized into clinical and nonclinical categories. Result  A total of 233 single-star reviews were included for analysis, which resulted in 468 total complaints. Of these complaints, 81 (18.8%) were clinically related and 351 (81.3%) were nonclinical in nature. The most common clinical complaints were for complication (24 complaints, 6%), misdiagnosis (16 complaints, 4%), unclear treatment plan (16 complaints, 4%), and uncontrolled pain (15 complaints, 3%). The most common nonclinical complaints were for physician bedside manner (93 complaints, 22%), financially related (80 complaints, 19%), unprofessional nonclinical staff (61 complaints, 14%), and wait time (46 complaints, 11%). The difference in the number of complaints for surgical and nonsurgical patients was statistically significant ( p  < 0.05) for complication and uncontrolled pain. Clinical Relevance  Patient satisfaction is dependent on a multitude of clinical and nonclinical factors. An awareness of online physician ratings is essential for hand and wrist surgeons to maintain and improve patient care and patient satisfaction. We believe the results of our study could be used to further improve the quality of care provided by hand and wrist surgeons.

Characterizing Negative Online Reviews of Spine Surgeons

DESIGN

Retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

Characterize negative reviews of spine surgeons in the United States.

SUMMARY

Physician rating websites significantly influence the selection of doctors by other patients. Negative experiences are impacted by various factors, both clinical and nonclinical, geography, and practice structure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and categorize negative reviews of spine surgeons in the United States, with a focus on surgical versus nonsurgical reviewers.

METHODS

Spine surgeons were selected from available online professional society membership directories. A search for reviews was performed on Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, and RateMDs.com for the past 10 years. Free response reviews were coded by complaint, and qualitative analysis was performed. χ 2 and Fisher exact tests were used to compare categorical variables, and multiple comparisons were adjusted with Benjamini-Hochberg correction. A binary logistic regression model was performed for the top three most mentioned nonclinical and clinical complaint labels. A P -value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 16,695 online reviews were evaluated, including 1690 one-star reviews (10.1%). Among one-star reviews, 64.7% were written by nonsurgical patients and 35.3% by surgical patients. Nonclinical and clinical comments constituted 54.9% and 45.1% of reviews, respectively. Surgeons in the South had more "bedside manner" comments (43.3%, P <0.0001), while Northeast surgeons had more "poor surgical outcome" remarks compared with all other geographic regions (14.4%, P <0.001). Practicing in the South and Northeast were independent predictors of having complaints about "bedside manner" and "poor surgical outcome," respectively.

CONCLUSION

Most one-star reviews of spine surgeons were attributed to nonsurgical patients, who tended to be unsatisfied with nonclinical factors, especially "bedside manner." However, there was substantial geographic variation. These results suggest that spine surgeons could benefit from focusing on nonclinical factors (bedside manner), especially among nonoperative patients, and that regional nuances should be considered in delivering spine care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level- 5.