Scope, Breadth, and Differences in Online Physician Ratings Related to Geography, Specialty, and Year: Observational Retrospective Study.

Jessica Janine Liu,Chaim M Bell,John Justin Matelski

doi:10.2196/jmir.7475

Abstract

BackgroundPhysician ratings websites have emerged as a novel forum for consumers to comment on their health care experiences. Little is known about such ratings in Canada.ObjectiveWe investigated the scope and trends for specialty, geographic region, and time for online physician ratings in Canada using a national data source from the country’s leading physician-rating website.MethodsThis observational retrospective study used online ratings data from Canadian physicians (January 2005-September 2013; N=640,603). For specialty, province, and year of rating, we assessed whether physicians were likely to be rated favorably by using the proportion of ratings greater than the overall median rating.ResultsIn total, 57,412 unique physicians had 640,603 individual ratings. Overall, ratings were positive (mean 3.9, SD 1.3). On average, each physician had 11.2 (SD 10.1) ratings. By comparing specialties with Canadian Institute of Health Information physician population numbers over our study period, we inferred that certain specialties (obstetrics and gynecology, family practice, surgery, and dermatology) were more commonly rated, whereas others (pathology, radiology, genetics, and anesthesia) were less represented. Ratings varied by specialty; cardiac surgery, nephrology, genetics, and radiology were more likely to be rated in the top 50th percentile, whereas addiction medicine, dermatology, neurology, and psychiatry were more often rated in the lower 50th percentile of ratings. Regarding geographic practice location, ratings were more likely to be favorable for physicians practicing in eastern provinces compared with western and central Canada. Regarding year, the absolute number of ratings peaked in 2007 before stabilizing and decreasing by 2013. Moreover, ratings were most likely to be positive in 2007 and again in 2013.ConclusionsPhysician-rating websites are a relatively novel source of provider-level patient satisfaction and are a valuable source of the patient experience. It is important to understand the breadth and scope of such ratings, particularly regarding specialty, geographic practice location, and changes over time.

Highlights

Patients’ abilities to discern health care quality are often underappreciated, despite evidence that low patient satisfaction scores and complaints against physicians are linked to increased risk management episodes, malpractice lawsuits, readmission rates, and even increased mortality for selected diagnoses [1,2,3,4,5]
We found that certain specialties had relatively increased numbers of per-physician ratings, including reproductive endocrinology, cosmetics/plastic surgery, and obstetrics and gynecology
We found that ratings for certain specialties were more likely to be in the top 50th percentile of all ratings, including cardiac surgery, genetics (73.5%, P

Summary

Introduction

Patients’ abilities to discern health care quality are often underappreciated, despite evidence that low patient satisfaction scores and complaints against physicians are linked to increased risk management episodes, malpractice lawsuits, readmission rates, and even increased mortality for selected diagnoses [1,2,3,4,5]. Physician-rating websites have become a popular source of patient satisfaction data [6]. In addition to private online physician websites, government or health insurer-developed sites are being used in countries such as the United Kingdom and Germany [8,9] Together, these physician-rating websites may impact patient health care decision making, as data suggests approximately one-third of users have searched for physicians online and report making decisions regarding physician selection based on these ratings [10]. Online physician-rating websites may impact physician behaviors; over the last five years, physicians have been increasingly responding online to their ratings [11] This data source may have significant implications on health care practice and behavior. It is important to understand the breadth and scope of such ratings, regarding specialty, geographic practice location, and changes over time

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion