Reporting of Patient Experience Data on Health Systems' Websites and Commercial Physician-Rating Websites: Mixed-Methods Analysis.

Tara Lagu, Caroline M Norton, Lindsey M Russo, Aruna Priya, Sarah L Goff, Peter K Lindenauer
Author Information
  1. Tara Lagu: Baystate Health, Institute for Healthcare Delivery and Population Science and Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate, Springfield, MA, United States. ORCID
  2. Caroline M Norton: College of Natural Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, United States. ORCID
  3. Lindsey M Russo: School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, United States. ORCID
  4. Aruna Priya: Baystate Health, Institute for Healthcare Delivery and Population Science and Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate, Springfield, MA, United States. ORCID
  5. Sarah L Goff: Baystate Health, Institute for Healthcare Delivery and Population Science and Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate, Springfield, MA, United States. ORCID
  6. Peter K Lindenauer: Baystate Health, Institute for Healthcare Delivery and Population Science and Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate, Springfield, MA, United States. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Some hospitals' and health systems' websites report physician-level ratings and comments drawn from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys.
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to examine the prevalence and content of health system websites reporting these data and compare narratives from these sites to narratives from commercial physician-rating sites.
METHODS: We identified health system websites active between June 1 and 30, 2016, that posted clinician reviews. For 140 randomly selected clinicians, we extracted the number of star ratings and narrative comments. We conducted a qualitative analysis of a random sample of these physicians' narrative reviews and compared these to a random sample of reviews from commercial physician-rating websites. We described composite quantitative scores for sampled physicians and compared the frequency of themes between reviews drawn from health systems' and commercial physician-rating websites.
RESULTS: We identified 42 health systems that published composite star ratings (42/42, 100%) or narratives (33/42, 79%). Most (27/42, 64%) stated that they excluded narratives deemed offensive. Of 140 clinicians, the majority had composite scores listed (star ratings: 122/140, 87.1%; narrative reviews: 114/140, 81.4%), with medians of 110 star ratings (IQR 42-175) and 25.5 (IQR 13-48) narratives. The rating median was 4.8 (IQR 4.7-4.9) out of five stars, and no clinician had a score less than 4.2. Compared to commercial physician-rating websites, we found significantly fewer negative comments on health system websites (35.5%, 76/214 vs 12.8%, 72/561, respectively; P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The lack of variation in star ratings on health system sites may make it difficult to differentiate between clinicians. Most health systems report that they remove offensive comments, and we notably found fewer negative comments on health system websites compared to commercial physician-rating sites.

Keywords

References

  1. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jun;27(6):685-92 [PMID: 22215270]
  2. Med Care Res Rev. 2010 Feb;67(1):27-37 [PMID: 19638641]
  3. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Nov 16;13(4):e95 [PMID: 22088924]
  4. J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Jun;32(6):626-631 [PMID: 28150098]
  5. Med Care Res Rev. 2014 Oct;71(5 Suppl):38S-64S [PMID: 23999489]
  6. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Aug 28;15(8):e187 [PMID: 23985220]
  7. Orthopedics. 2017 Sep 1;40(5):304-310 [PMID: 28817163]
  8. JAMA. 2017 Feb 21;317(7):766-768 [PMID: 28241346]
  9. Vaccine. 2011 Oct 6;29(43):7343-9 [PMID: 21839136]
  10. J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Oct;23(10):1642-6 [PMID: 18649110]
  11. Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS22-31 [PMID: 10098556]
  12. N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 19;376(3):197-199 [PMID: 28099823]
  13. Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88 [PMID: 16204405]
  14. J Hosp Med. 2016 Jan;11(1):52-5 [PMID: 26390277]
  15. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Apr;35(4):697-705 [PMID: 27044971]
  16. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Mar 26;20(3):e99 [PMID: 29581091]
  17. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Oct;23(10):838-46 [PMID: 24748372]
  18. Health Serv Res. 2016 Jun;51 Suppl 2:1248-72 [PMID: 27126144]
  19. JAMA. 2014 Feb 19;311(7):734-5 [PMID: 24549555]
  20. J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Sep;25(9):942-6 [PMID: 20464523]
  21. Med Care. 2012 Nov;50 Suppl:S56-64 [PMID: 23064278]
  22. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013 Jan;39(1):7-15 [PMID: 23367647]
  23. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Sep 19;18(9):e254 [PMID: 27644135]
  24. N Engl J Med. 2015 Aug 13;373(7):675-9 [PMID: 26267629]

Grants

  1. K01 HL114745/NHLBI NIH HHS
  2. K23 HD080870/NICHD NIH HHS
  3. R01 HL139985/NHLBI NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Female
Humans
Internet
Male
Patient Satisfaction
Physicians
Research Design
Social Networking
Surveys and Questionnaires

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0healthwebsitesratingscommentssystemnarrativescommercialphysician-ratingreviewsstarsitescliniciansnarrativecomparedcompositeIQR4systems'reportdrawnreportingidentifiedclinician140randomsamplescoressystemsoffensivefoundfewernegativeBACKGROUND:hospitals'physician-levelConsumerAssessmentHealthcareProvidersSystemssurveysOBJECTIVE:aimexamineprevalencecontentdatacompareMETHODS:activeJune1302016postedrandomlyselectedextractednumberconductedqualitativeanalysisphysicians'describedquantitativesampledphysiciansfrequencythemesRESULTS:42published42/42100%33/4279%27/4264%statedexcludeddeemedmajoritylistedratings:122/140871%reviews:114/140814%medians11042-17525513-48ratingmedian87-49fivestarsscoreless2Comparedsignificantly355%76/214vs128%72/561respectivelyP<001CONCLUSIONS:lackvariationmaymakedifficultdifferentiateremovenotablyReportingPatientExperienceDataHealthSystems'WebsitesCommercialPhysician-RatingWebsites:Mixed-MethodsAnalysisphysicianpublicsocialnetworking

Similar Articles

Cited By