Online Ratings of ASOPRS Surgeons: What Do Your Patients Really Think of You?

Assessment of laryngologists' ratings on physician review websites

Objective

To assess and characterize online ratings and comments on laryngologists and determine factors that correlate with higher ratings.

Methods

All the American Laryngological Association (ALA) members were queried across several online platforms. Ratings were normalized for comparison on a five-point Likert scale. Ratings were categorized based on context and for positive/negative aspects.

Results

Of the 331 ALA members, 256 (77%) were rated on at least one online platform. Across all platforms, the average overall rating was 4.39 ± 0.61 (range: 1.00-5.00). Specific positive ratings including "bedside manners," "diagnostic accuracy," "adequate time spent with patient," "appropriate follow-up," and "physician timeliness" had significant positive correlations to overall ratings, by Pearson's correlation (P < 0.001). Long wait times had significant negative correlations to overall ratings (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Online ratings and comments for laryngologists are significantly influenced by patient perceptions of bedside manner, physician competence, and time spent with the patient.

Physician Review Websites: Understanding Patient Satisfaction with Ophthalmologists Using Natural Language Processing

Introduction

The presence and influence of physician review websites (PRW) have increased significantly in the field of medicine. This study aims to better understand determinants of patient satisfaction and the sentiment of ophthalmologists using natural language processing of Healthgrades reviews.

Methods

Healthgrades is a PRW where patients submit verified reviews, containing a star rating and a narrative review, of US-based ophthalmologists. This was a quantitative observational study conducted on May 23, 2022. We identified associations between physician demographics and both the sentiment analysis scores of narrative reviews and star ratings using the Student's t-tests and one-way ANOVA tests. After natural language processing the reviews, a logistic regression explored the impacts of the most frequent words on the positivity of a given review.

Results

This study examined a total of 16700 reviews of 1125 ophthalmologists. Ophthalmologists of younger age and male gender received statistically significantly higher star ratings and sentiment analysis scores; analysis of location of practice did not affect scores. Textual analysis revealed that words describing the physician's personality, such as "friendly" and "caring," increased the likelihood of reviews being positive more than descriptors of the visit's effectiveness, such as "results" and "efficient."

Conclusion

Younger and male ophthalmologists received higher star ratings and sentiment analysis scores. Additionally, results indicated that words describing the ophthalmologist's pleasant personality and the visit's effectiveness most positively impacted a review, whereas descriptors of a wait or an unpleasant personality most negatively impacted a review.

Building better pediatric surgeons: A sentiment analysis of online physician review websites

PURPOSE

Physician review websites are a heavily utilized patient tool for finding, rating, and reviewing surgeons. Natural language processing such as sentiment analysis provides a comprehensive approach to better understand the nuances of patient perception. This study utilizes sentiment analysis to examine how specific patient sentiments correspond to positive and negative experiences in online reviews of pediatric orthopedic surgeons.

METHODS

The online written reviews and star ratings of pediatric surgeons belonging to the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America were obtained from healthgrades.com. A sentiment analysis package obtained compound scores of each surgeon's reviews. Inferential statistics analyzed relationships between demographic variables and star/sentiment scores. Word frequency analyses and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed on key terms.

RESULTS

A total of 749 pediatric surgeons (3830 total online reviews) were included. 80.8% were males and 33.8% were below 50 years of age. Male surgeons and younger surgeons had higher mean star ratings. Surgeon attributes including "confident" (p < 0.01) and "comfortable" (p < 0.01) improved the odds of positive reviews, while "rude" (p < 0.01) and "unprofessional" (p < 0.01) decreased these odds. Comments regarding "pain" lowered the odds of positive reviews (p < 0.01), whereas "pain-free" increased these odds (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Pediatric surgeons who were younger, communicated effectively, eased pain, and curated a welcoming office setting were more likely to receive positively written online reviews. This suggests that a spectrum of interpersonal and ancillary factors impact patient experience and perceptions beyond surgical skill. These outcomes can advise pediatric surgeons on behavioral and office qualities that patients and families prioritize when rating/recommending surgeons online.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Online Ratings and Perceptions of Pediatric Otolaryngologists

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

To assess and characterize online ratings and comments on pediatric otolaryngologists and determine factors that correlate with higher ratings.

STUDY DESIGN

Online database analysis.

METHODS

All American Society of Pediatric Otolaryngology (ASPO) members were queried on Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and Yelp for their online ratings and comments as of June 2020. Ratings were normalized for comparison on a five-point Likert scale. All comments were categorized based on context and positive or negative quality.

RESULTS

Of the 561 ASPO members, 489 (87%) were rated on at least one online platform. Of those rated, 410 (84%) were on Healthgrades, 429 (88%) on Vitals, 236 (48%) on RateMDs, and 72 (15%) on Yelp. Across all platforms, the average overall rating was 4.13 ± 0.03 (range, 1.00-5.00). We found significant positive correlations between overall ratings and specific ratings (P < .001) on all individual topics. In addition, the majority of all narrative comments were related to perceived physician bedside manner and clinical outcome, with negative comments correlating negatively with overall score (P < .05). Time spent with the physician was the only category in which both positive and negative comments showed significant correlation with the overall physician rating (P = .016 and P = .017, respectively). Attending a top-ranked medical school or residency program did not correlate with higher or lower ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Online ratings and comments for pediatric otolaryngologists are largely influenced by patient and parent perceptions of physician competence, comforting bedside manner, and office and time management.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A Laryngoscope, 2021.

Online ratings of spinal deformity surgeons: analysis of 634 surgeons

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the online ratings of spine deformity surgeons and variables that may affect online ratings Physician review websites (PRW) continue to be an emerging trend in the US across all specialties. Previous literature with smaller sample sizes revealed that most spine surgeons are rated on at least on PRW. To date, the online ratings of spinal deformity surgeons have not been evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of the 2017 Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) Fellowship directory for active fellows and candidate members yielded 634 active members. Online ratings from five PRWs were recorded and scaled from 0 to 100. Using SPSS, one-way analysis of variance was used to compare differences between multiple groups. A t test was used to compare differences between two groups. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Most surgeons (98.7%) were rated on at least one PRW. Surgeons in academic or hospital practice had higher ratings than those in private practice (83.4 vs. 78.8, and 83.7 vs. 78.8, p < 0.001). Surgeons with 0-5-year experience had higher ratings than more experienced surgeons (p < 0.001). However, surgeons in practice for 0-5 years also had fewer reviews than their more experienced colleagues (p < 0.05). We found no differences in ratings based on sex, specialty, or region. The largest differences in ratings between high and poorly rated spine surgeons was in areas pertaining to the doctor-patient relationship (answering questions, time spent with the patient).

CONCLUSION

The majority (98.7%) of SRS surgeons are rated on at least one PRW. SRS surgeons in practice between 0 and 5 years have higher ratings than more experienced surgeons, but were rated by fewer patients than their more experienced counterparts. Higher ratings were associated with variables pertaining to the patient-doctor relationship.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Patients' Online Perception and Ratings of Neurotologists

OBJECTIVES

To assess and characterize patients' online ratings and comments of neurotologists and determine factors that correlate with higher ratings.

METHODS

All the American Neurotology Society members were queried on Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, Yelp, and Google from March to June 2018. All ratings were normalized for comparison on a five-point Likert scale. All comments were categorized based on context and for positive/negative aspect.

RESULTS

Of the 560 American Neurotology Society members, 465 (83%) were rated on at least one online platform. Of those rated, 420 (90%) were on Healthgrades, 392 (84%) on Vitals, 283 (61%) on RateMDs, 232 (50%) on Google, and 56 (12%) on Yelp. Across all platforms, the average overall rating was 4.06 ± 0.68 (range: 1.00-5.00). There were significant positive correlations between overall rating and specific ratings (p < 0.01) on individual topics. Moreover, categorizing 5,317 narrative comments elicited the majority to be related to perceived physician bedside manner and clinical outcome. Although the number of positive comments outnumbered the negative ones, only the negative comments correlated (negatively) with the overall score (p < 0.01). Attending a top 25- or 50-medical schools or residency programs did not correlate with their rating.

CONCLUSIONS

Online ratings and comments for neurotologists are highly dependent on patient perceptions of physician competence, caring bedside manner, and office management. Minimizing the number of negative comments, especially regarding perceived physicians' professionalism and communication, clinical outcome, bedside manners, and office management, leads to higher calculated overall scores and online perception.

How do physician demographics, training, social media usage, online presence, and wait times influence online physician review scores for spine surgeons?

OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study was to assess the impact of certain demographics, social media usage, and physician review website variables for spine surgeons across Healthgrades.com (Healthgrades), Vitals.com (Vitals), and Google.com (Google).METHODSThrough a directory of registered North American Spine Society (NASS) physicians, we identified spine surgeons practicing in Texas (107 neurosurgery trained, 192 orthopedic trained). Three physician rating websites (Healthgrades, Vitals, Google) were accessed to obtain surgeon demographics, training history, practice setting, number of ratings/reviews, and overall score (January 2, 2018-January 16, 2018). Using only the first 10 search results from Google.com, we then identified whether the surgeon had a website presence or an accessible social media account on Facebook, Twitter, and/or Instagram.RESULTSPhysicians with either a personal or institutional website had a higher overall rating on Healthgrades compared to those who did not have a website (p < 0.01). Nearly all spine surgeons had a personal or institutional website (90.3%), and at least 1 accessible social media account was recorded for 43.5% of the spine surgeons in our study cohort (39.5% Facebook, 10.4% Twitter, 2.7% Instagram). Social media presence was not significantly associated with overall ratings across all 3 sites, but it did significantly correlate with more comments on Healthgrades. In multivariable analysis, increasing surgeon age was significantly associated with a lower overall rating across all 3 review sites (p < 0.05). Neurosurgeons had higher overall ratings on Vitals (p = 0.04). Longer wait times were significantly associated with a lower overall rating on Healthgrades (p < 0.0001). Overall ratings from all 3 websites correlated significantly with each other, indicating agreement between physician ratings across different platforms.CONCLUSIONSLonger wait times, increasing physician age, and the absence of a website are indicative of lower online review scores for spine surgeons. Neurosurgery training correlated with a higher overall review score on Vitals. Having an accessible social media account does not appear to influence scores, but it is correlated with increased patient feedback on Healthgrades. Identification of ways to optimize patients' perception of care are important in the future of performance-based medicine.

Assessing patient satisfaction among ABHRS surgeons: Opportunities to improve

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Online physician-rating websites are being increasingly used by patients to gauge physicians' quality of service. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of residency training background of hair restoration surgeons and to identify themes of patient reviews using online physician-rating portals.

METHOD

From July 1, 2018 to July 18, 2018, a list of American Board of Hair Restoration Surgery (ABHRS) physicians was compiled. Each member's name was searched on Healthgrades.com and Yelp.com websites, and profile reviews were analyzed for themes of patient satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

RESULTS

Eighty-six ABHRS-certified surgeons were identified on the ABHRS physician directory practicing in the United States. Eleven different residency training backgrounds are represented. Surgeons were given significantly higher ratings on Healthgrades (4.63 vs 3.77, P < 0.001), and nonsurgeons were given significantly higher ratings on Yelp (4.31 vs 4.11, P = 0.036). A total of 567 five-star reviews and 59 one-star reviews were analyzed for content across both physician review portals. The most commonly cited topics included results, office staff, physician's bedside manner, comfort during procedure, patient-perceived physician's honesty, patient-perceived physician's knowledge, cost/financing options, recovery time, and wait time/scheduling.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant, yet inconsistent differences in ratings were found between surgical and nonsurgical residency backgrounds across online physician-rating portals. Understanding drivers of positive and negative reviews may help surgeons improve patient satisfaction.

How wait-times, social media, and surgeon demographics influence online reviews on leading review websites for joint replacement surgeons

OBJECTIVE

With the growth and popularity of the internet, physician review websites are being utilized more frequently by patients to learn about and ultimately select their provider. These sites allow patients to comment on the care they received in a public forum for others to see. With outcome and "quality" measures being used to dictate reimbursement formulas; online patient reviews may affect a physician's compensation in the near future. Therefore, it is of paramount importance for physicians to understand how best to portray themselves on social media and other internet sites.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we identified 145 arthroplasty surgeons via the AAHKS database. Then, surgeon data was collected from Healthgrades (HG) and Vitals (V). We identified if the surgeon had social media (SM) accounts by using google search. The number of ratings and comments, overall rating, reported wait-times and physician SM presence were analyzed with univariate, bivariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

64% of surgeons had a SM presence, and younger surgeons with SM had lower distribution of wait-times. A SM presence correlated with significantly higher frequency of total ratings and comments. Both review sites showed that younger physicians with a SM presence had increased frequency of ratings and comments and a quicker office wait-times. SM presence did not impact the overall scores on either website.

CONCLUSION

Having SM presence is correlated with increased number of ratings and comments on physician review sites, possibly revealing an increased likelihood of these physicians encouraging their patients to engage with them via the internet. SM presence did not correlate with higher review scores, displaying that there are many complex factors that go into a physician score outside of SM and internet appearance. Future studies should explore patient comments on these sites to understand additional factors that may optimize a patient's experience.

How social media, training, and demographics influence online reviews across three leading review websites for spine surgeons

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The future of health care is consumer driven with a focus on outcome metrics and patient feedback. Physician review websites have grown in popularity and are guiding patients to certain health-care providers, for better or worse. No prior study has specifically evaluated Internet reviews of spine surgeons, determined if social media (SM) correlates with patient reviews, or evaluated Google as a physician review website.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate patient satisfaction scores for spine surgeons in Florida using leading physician ratings websites.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study was carried out.

SAMPLE POPULATION

The sample comprised spine surgeons with a review on Healthgrades.com (HG), Vitals.com (V), or Google.com (G) online rating websites as of August 17, 2017.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of ratings, number of comments, overall rating, patient-reported wait times, physician website presence, and physician SM presence were the outcome measures.

METHODS

Using the directory of registered North American Spine Society physicians, we identified all spine surgeons practicing in Florida (137 orthopedic trained; 78 neurosurgery trained). Surgeon demographics and ratings data were collected from three physician rating websites (HG, V, G) from July 19, 2017 to August 17, 2017. Using only the first 10 search results from Google.com we then identified if the surgeon had accounts on Facebook (FB), Twitter (TW), or Instagram (IG).

RESULTS

Nearly every surgeon in this cohort had either an institutional or personal website (98.1%), and 38.6% had at least one SM outlet of our three reviewed. Both personal and institutional website presence significantly correlated with higher G scores. Spine surgeons with a searchable account on FB, TW, or IG made up 35.4%, 10.2%, and 0.5% of the cohort, respectively. Surgeons with an SM presence had a significantly higher number of ratings and comments on HG, V, and G, but not overall scores. In multivariable analysis, only V showed a significant inverse correlation between overall score and age, private institution, and orthopedic surgery training. Wait times >30 minutes were significantly associated with worse overall scores across all three review sites. Overall ratings between HG, V, and G all had significantly positive correlations on Pearson correlation analysis.

CONCLUSION

Social media presence correlates with patient communication in the form of number of ratings and comments, yet does not impact overall scores, suggesting social media may influence patient feedback. Longer wait times are indicative of lower scores across all three platforms. Overall ratings from all three websites correlate significantly with each other, indicating agreement between physician ratings across different platforms. Understanding the factors that optimize a patient's overall experience with a physician is an important and emerging outcome measure for the future of patient-centered health care.

Online Ratings of Spine Surgeons: Analysis of 208 Surgeons

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the online ratings of spine surgeons and variables that may affect online ratings.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Physician review Web sites (PRW) are rapidly growing for-profit businesses. Most orthopedic surgeons are rated on at least one PRW as are other surgical specialists. To date the online ratings of spine surgeons have not been evaluated.

METHODS

Cervical Spine Research Society surgeon ratings on five physician rating Web sites were performed in April 2016: "healthgrade.com," "vitals.com," "ratemd.com," "webmd.com," and "yelp.com." Numeric ratings from the PRWs were standardized on a scale of 0 to 100 with a higher score indicating positive ratings. Sex, practice sector (academic or private), specialty (orthopedics or neurosurgery), geographic location, and years of practice were also collected.

RESULTS

A total of 209 spine surgeons were included in our study. Of the 209 spine surgeons, 208 (99.52%) were rated at least once in one of the five PRWs. Average number of ratings per surgeon was 2.96. Average rating was 80 (40-100). There were four female (1.92%) and 204 male surgeons (98.1%). There were 121 (58.2%) in academic practice and 87 (41.8%) in private practice. There were 175 (84.1%) orthopedic surgeons and 33 (15.9%) neurosurgeons. Most of the surgeons were Caucasian 163 (78.4%) and worked in the South and Northeast 135 (64.9%). Those in academic practice had significantly higher ratings (81.6 vs. 77.65; P = 0.026). Number of years in practice was significantly associated with ratings (P = 0.0003) with those in practice for 21 or more years having significantly lower ratings.

CONCLUSION

In this first study evaluating the online ratings of spine surgeons, we found that 99.5% of spine surgeon had at least one rating on a PRW. The average score, 80, indicated mostly positive ratings. Being in practice for 20 years or less and being in academic practice significantly associated with higher ratings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.