Analyses Of 22,833 Orthopaedic Surgeons’ Scores From 2 Major Physician-Rating Websites
|
If you are the presenter of this abstract (or if you cite this abstract in a talk or on a poster), please show the QR code in your slide or poster (QR code contains this URL). |
Abstract
Introduction: With patients’ increasing use of the Internet, more information is available on surgeons through physician rating websites. Patients are relying on these resources to evaluate and select health care providers. No comprehensive review of this information on orthopaedic surgeons exists in the United States. This study aims to collect and analyze patients’ ratings of orthopaedic surgeons on Healthgrades and Vitals.
Methods: A web data collection algorithm was developed that systematically searched the names and associated locations of 26,472 active U.S. orthopaedic surgeons on these 2 sites. These were chosen because they have the highest Internet traffic of physician-rating sites. The names of active U.S. orthopaedic surgeons were obtained from a commercial directory, which also included demographic information. The variables collected from the websites were classified as organizational or interpersonal as they relate to the practice or the physician (Table 1); there is also an overall patient rating of each physician on the websites. Correlation between organizational and interpersonal sub-scores and overall score were measured with Pearson coefficients and Spearman’s rho. Multiple regression helped determine whether demographic factors influence overall scores. Administrators of these sites were notified that their data was being collected for this research.
Results: Of all the orthopaedic surgeons, 22,833(86.3%) had a rating on either site, and 15,453(58.4%) had ratings on both. The average overall score for Healthgrades is 3.967±0.932(15) and 3.21±.81(14) for Vitals. Interpersonal scores were highly correlated with a patient's overall score for a physician on Healthgrades (trust, r = .9706; explanation, r =.9512; dialogue, r = .9532; time, r = .9324). Organizational factors had weaker correlations with overall score (scheduling, r = .7779; office environment, r = .7618; office friendliness, r = .7779). Wait time had the weakest correlation (rho = .4157). Ratings from Vitals corroborated these findings. All pvalues were <.00001. In the multiple regression, several physician demographic factors were significant for influencing the overall score, including age (p<0.0001) and board certification (p = .043), with younger board certified surgeons garnering higher ratings. However, the overall effect of surgeon demographic factors was minimal (Healthgrades, R2 = .0329; Vitals, R2 = .0194).
Discussion: The overall ratings for orthopaedic surgeons are highly associated with interpersonal factors. Although organizational factors are correlated, they are less strongly associated with a patient’s overall assessment of an orthopaedic surgeon. These findings suggest that orthopaedists can positively influence their online ratings by improving their faceto-face interactions with patients.
Methods: A web data collection algorithm was developed that systematically searched the names and associated locations of 26,472 active U.S. orthopaedic surgeons on these 2 sites. These were chosen because they have the highest Internet traffic of physician-rating sites. The names of active U.S. orthopaedic surgeons were obtained from a commercial directory, which also included demographic information. The variables collected from the websites were classified as organizational or interpersonal as they relate to the practice or the physician (Table 1); there is also an overall patient rating of each physician on the websites. Correlation between organizational and interpersonal sub-scores and overall score were measured with Pearson coefficients and Spearman’s rho. Multiple regression helped determine whether demographic factors influence overall scores. Administrators of these sites were notified that their data was being collected for this research.
Results: Of all the orthopaedic surgeons, 22,833(86.3%) had a rating on either site, and 15,453(58.4%) had ratings on both. The average overall score for Healthgrades is 3.967±0.932(15) and 3.21±.81(14) for Vitals. Interpersonal scores were highly correlated with a patient's overall score for a physician on Healthgrades (trust, r = .9706; explanation, r =.9512; dialogue, r = .9532; time, r = .9324). Organizational factors had weaker correlations with overall score (scheduling, r = .7779; office environment, r = .7618; office friendliness, r = .7779). Wait time had the weakest correlation (rho = .4157). Ratings from Vitals corroborated these findings. All pvalues were <.00001. In the multiple regression, several physician demographic factors were significant for influencing the overall score, including age (p<0.0001) and board certification (p = .043), with younger board certified surgeons garnering higher ratings. However, the overall effect of surgeon demographic factors was minimal (Healthgrades, R2 = .0329; Vitals, R2 = .0194).
Discussion: The overall ratings for orthopaedic surgeons are highly associated with interpersonal factors. Although organizational factors are correlated, they are less strongly associated with a patient’s overall assessment of an orthopaedic surgeon. These findings suggest that orthopaedists can positively influence their online ratings by improving their faceto-face interactions with patients.
Medicine 2.0® is happy to support and promote other conferences and workshops in this area. Contact us to produce, disseminate and promote your conference or workshop under this label and in this event series. In addition, we are always looking for hosts of future World Congresses. Medicine 2.0® is a registered trademark of JMIR Publications Inc., the leading academic ehealth publisher.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.