Patient Assessments and Online Ratings of Quality Care: A Cross-comparison of Multiple Physician Evaluation Websites

Abstract

Purpose: Physician evaluation websites (PEWs) are a critical part of the expanding universe of online reviews and serve as an important information resource for patients searching for new healthcare providers. Unfortunately, fear of negative anonymous feedback and the overwhelming number of PEWs prevent most physicians from harnessing the potential of these sites. This study compares the completeness, accuracy and reviews of 10 notable PEWs and will help physicians identify which sites are most relevant and deserving of their attention. Methods: Sixteen nationally recognized gastroenterology clinical leaders, representing coast to coast diverse geographic regions of the U.S., were selected and searched within 10 of 11 websites that had been identified as noteworthy in a previous study. Angieslist.com was not studied as it requires a paid membership for access to reviews. Each site was assessed for completeness in physician listing, accuracy of published office contact information and number and quality of reviews. PEWs were cross compared on the basis of their size in number of unique visitors per month. The three largest websites were compared to identify any potential trends across reviews of specific providers. Results: On average, each physician was listed on 70% of the PEWs. Of all sites searched, docspot.com, ucomparehealthcare.com and vitals.com listed the most physicians (>90%). Seventy-nine percent of office address listings and 77% of office phone listings were correct. Docspot.com was the most accurate for both addresses and phone numbers (>90%). The average physician had only 1.3 reviews on a typical website, with > 80% of reviews coming from just three websites, healthgrades.com, ucomparehealthcare. com and vitals.com. The majority of reviews were positive (p<0.0021). Websites with greater than 1 million unique visitors per month listed significantly more physicians than sites with fewer visitors (p<0.001). A positive correlation was also found between reviews on ucomparehealthcare.com and vitals. com (p=0.0007). Conclusion: There is great variability between PEWs in terms of their completeness, accuracy and number of reviews. The PEWs that clearly stood out from the rest were docspot.com, healthgrades. com, ucomparehealthcare.com and vitals.com. Physicians with high scores on ucomparehealthcare. com are likely to be similarly scored on vitals.com and vice versa, suggesting possible reproducibility across multiple PEWs. Additional studies into this trend are needed. This research study will aid gastroenterologists in sorting through a confusing plethora of PEWs, thereby focusing physician attention on PEWs most likely to produce the greatest results in terms of improved website reference information accuracy and publicity.