Role of reputation in top pediatric specialties rankings

Trends in Response Rate to US News & World Report Best Hospitals Reputation Survey, 2015 to 2023

Reputation score has been shown to be the strongest predictor of ranking in the US News & World Reports (USNWR) Best Hospitals report. However, the extent to which physicians participate in the underlying USNWR reputation survey is not well-characterized. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of USNWR public methodology reports from 2015 to 2023 to characterize trends in physician response rates by specialty, region, and Doximity membership. Overall response rates declined between 2015 (24.0%) and 2023 (8.9%). In 2023, rates ranged from 4.7% (psychiatry) to 13.9% (otolaryngology). Otolaryngology had the highest response rate among all specialties between 2017 and 2023. Within otolaryngology, both response rates (25.0% to 13.9%) and count (2106 to 1724 physicians) declined between 2015 and 2023. Among Doximity members, response rates were consistently higher for otolaryngologists in the Northeast and Midwest compared to other regions. Though hospital rankings often influence where patients seek care, our findings suggest USNWR reputation scores may not be reliable or representative.

Preserving the Future of Infectious Diseases: Why We Must Address the Decline in Compensation for Clinicians and Researchers

Infectious diseases (ID) physicians play a pivotal role in patient care and public health, yet concerns are mounting about their under-compensation compared with other medical specialties. This trend sees ID physicians, including new graduates, receiving lower remuneration than their general and hospital medicine peers, despite their significant contributions. The persistent disparity in compensation has been identified as a key factor behind the declining interest in the ID specialty among medical students and residents, potentially threatening patient care quality, research advancement, and diversity within the ID workforce. This viewpoint underscores the urgent need for the ID community to rally behind the Infectious Diseases Society of America in advocating for fair compensation for ID physicians and researchers. While focusing on wellness and work-life balance is vital, it is critical to address compensation, a significant source of distress for physicians. Failure to confront the issue of under-compensation promptly may jeopardize the future growth and sustainability of the ID specialty.

Children's hospital quality ratings: where are we and can we do better?

Hospital quality ratings are intended to guide patients and payers to the highest quality hospitals. Their success in achieving this goal has been limited by inconsistencies between ratings and questionable data collection methods. Despite these shortcomings, their popularity and their importance are increasing. There is little published on how these quality rankings pertain to children's hospitals. The majority of what is available analyzes the US News and World Report's Best Children's Hospitals Survey and the Leapfrog Group's Pediatric Care survey. We provide a narrative review of the literature and our interpretation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of these tools, including a letter grade comparison. Based on our analysis, we provide potential improvements to these rating systems that may benefit both the patient, payer, and the hospital.

U.S. News & World Report Ophthalmology Hospital Rankings and Research Productivity

Introduction Despite the wide usage of U.S. News & World Report (U.S. News) rankings of ophthalmology hospitals among the public, residency applicants, and ophthalmologists, there is disagreement in the literature on the role of quality of care, research productivity, and other factors in the ranking system. This study investigated the association of U.S. News ranking of ophthalmology hospitals and objective measures of research productivity.

Methods The 2020 U.S. News “Best Hospitals for Ophthalmology” ranking lists 38 hospitals by reputation score and numerically ranks the top 12 institutions. For our analysis, top 12 hospitals were classified as group A and the remaining 26 as group B. The Clinicaltrials.gov, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER), and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) were systematically searched for total clinical trials, NIH funding, and the National Eye Institute (NEI) funding for fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019. Faculty size and the number of publications by ophthalmology faculty per hospital were recorded from a previous study in 2016.

Results Independent measures of research productivity significantly associated with group A status after multivariate logistic regression analysis were mean faculty Hirsch's index (h-index) over 15 (odds ratio [OR]: 6.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.14–32.94]) and conducting five or more total clinical trials (OR: 8.77, 95% CI: [1.39–55.16]).

Conclusion This study suggests that the reputation-based U.S. News ranking may serve as a proxy for an ophthalmology department's contribution to research measured by mean faculty h-index and number of clinical trials.

Correlations Between Hospitals' Social Media Presence and Reputation Score and Ranking: Cross-Sectional Analysis

Background

The US News and World Report reputation score correlates strongly with overall rank in adult and pediatric hospital rankings. Social media affects how information is disseminated to physicians and is used by hospitals as a marketing tool to recruit patients. It is unclear whether the reputation score for adult and children’s hospitals relates to social media presence.

Objective

The objective of our study was to analyze the association between a hospital’s social media metrics and the US News 2017-2018 Best Hospital Rankings for adult and children’s hospitals.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the reputation score, total score, and social media metrics (Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram) of hospitals who received at least one subspecialty ranking in the 2017-2018 US News publicly available annual rankings. Regression analysis was employed to analyze the partial correlation coefficients between social media metrics and a hospital’s total points (ie, rank) and reputation score for both adult and children’s hospitals while controlling for the bed size and time on Twitter.

Results

We observed significant correlations for children’s hospitals’ reputation score and total points with the number of Twitter followers (total points: r=.465, P<.001; reputation: r=.524, P<.001) and Facebook followers (total points: r=.392, P=.002; reputation: r=.518, P<.001). Significant correlations for the adult hospitals reputation score were found with the number of Twitter followers (r=.848, P<.001), number of tweets (r=.535, P<.001), Klout score (r=.242, P=.02), and Facebook followers (r=.743, P<.001). In addition, significant correlations for adult hospitals total points were found with Twitter followers (r=.548, P<.001), number of tweets (r=.358, P<.001), Klout score (r=.203, P=.05), Facebook followers (r=.500, P<.001), and Instagram followers (r=.692, P<.001).

Conclusions

A statistically significant correlation exists between multiple social media metrics and both a hospital’s reputation score and total points (ie, overall rank). This association may indicate that a hospital’s reputation may be influenced by its social media presence or that the reputation or rank of a hospital drives social media followers.

Identifying a quality improvement project

An important step on the roadmap to a successful quality improvement (QI) project is careful selection of topics and aims to be addressed by QI projects. Using information from a variety of data monitoring systems as well as individual events and experiences, leaders of neonatal units and QI teams should first identify quality and safety gaps in their unit. They should then use an explicit, formal process for selecting the best projects to which their limited time and resources should be allocated. Priority should be given to projects that address a quality gap of high magnitude and impact, have a high likelihood of success, have a champion, fit with the unit's state of readiness for change, have organizational support and align with organizational priorities. The scope of the project should also match the experience and expertise of the QI team.

US News and World Report cancer hospital rankings: do they reflect measures of research productivity?

Context

Prior research has faulted the US News and World Report hospital specialty rankings for excessive reliance on reputation, a subjective measure of a hospital's performance.

Objective

To determine whether and to what extent reputation correlates with objective measures of research productivity among cancer hospitals.

Design

A retrospective observational study.

Setting

Automated search of NIH Reporter, BioEntrez, BioMedline and Clinicaltrials.gov databases.

Participants

The 50 highest ranked cancer hospitals in 2013's US News and World Report Rankings.

Exposure

We ascertained the number of NCI funded grants, and the cumulative funds received by each cancer center. Additionally, we identified the number of phase I, phase II, and phase III studies published and indexed in MEDLINE, and registered at clinicaltrials.gov. All counts were over the preceding 5 years. For published articles, we summed the impact factor of the journals in which they appeared. Trials were attributed to centers on the basis of the affiliation of the lead author or study principal investigator.

Main Outcome

Correlation coefficients from simple and multiple linear regressions for measures of research productivity and a center's reputation.

Results

All measures of research productivity demonstrated robust correlation with reputation (mean r-squared  = 0.65, median r-squared = 0.68, minimum r-squared = .41, maximum r-squared = 0.80). A multivariable model showed that 93% of the variation in reputation is explained by objective measures.

Conclusion

Contrary to prior criticism, the majority of reputation, used in US News and World Rankings, can be explained by objective measures of research productivity among cancer hospitals.

The Publication Ranking Score for pediatric urology: quantifying thought leadership within the subspecialty

OBJECTIVES

Clinical care parameters are frequently assessed by national ranking systems. However, these rankings do little to comment on institutions' academic contributions. The Publication Ranking Score (PRS) was developed to allow for objective comparisons of scientific thought-leadership at various pediatric urology institutions.

METHODS

Faculty lists were compiled for each of the US News & World Report (USNWR) top-50 pediatric urology hospitals. A list of all faculty publications (2006-2011) was then compiled, after adjusting for journal impact factor, and summed to derive a Publication Ranking Score (PRS). PRS rankings were then compared to the USNWR pediatric urology top-50 hospital list.

RESULTS

A total of 1811 publications were indexed. PRS rankings resulted in a mean change in rank of 12 positions, compared to USNWR ranks. Of the top-10 USNWR hospitals, only 4 were ranked in the top-10 by the PRS. There was little correlation between the USNWR and PRS ranks for either top-10 (r = 0.42, p = 0.23) or top-50 (r = 0.48, p = 0.0004) hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

PRS institutional ranking differs significantly from the USNWR top-50 hospital list in pediatric urology. While not a replacement, we believe the PRS to be a useful adjunct to the USNWR rankings of pediatric urology hospitals.