Do Practice Characteristics Influence Online Ratings of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons?

Author(s):  
Keshav Jha-Kumar ◽  
Sampeter Odera ◽  
Nisarg A. Patel
1993 ◽  
Vol 57 (11) ◽  
pp. 798-803
Author(s):  
LJ Gatlin ◽  
SL Handelman ◽  
C Meyerowitz ◽  
E Solomon ◽  
B Iranpour ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suleyman Utku Celik ◽  
Alperen Aslan ◽  
Eylul Coskun ◽  
Beyza Nur Coban ◽  
Zeynep Haner ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Burnout resulting from long-term and unmanaged workplace stress is high among healthcare professionals, especially surgeons, and affects both individuals and the quality of patient care. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and associated factors for burnout among attending general surgeons and to identify possible preventive strategies. Methods A national cross-sectional survey using a 35-item questionnaire was conducted among members of the Turkish Surgical Society. The survey evaluated demographics, professional and practice characteristics, social participation, and burnout as well as interventions to deal with burnout. Burnout was defined as a high score on the emotional exhaustion (EE) and/or depersonalization (DP) subscales. Surgeons with high scores on both the EE and DP and a low score on personal accomplishment (PA) were considered to have severe burnout. Results Six hundred fifteen general surgeons completed the survey. The median EE, DP, and PA scores were 34 (IQR, 20–43), 9 (IQR, 4–16), and 36 (IQR, 30–42), respectively. Overall, the prevalence of burnout and severe burnout were 69.1 and 22.0%, respectively. On multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with burnout were working in a training and research hospital (OR = 3.34; P < 0.001) or state hospital (OR = 2.77; P = 0.001), working ≥ 60 h per week (OR = 1.57; P = 0.046), and less frequent participation in social activities (OR = 3.65; P < 0.001). Conclusions Burnout is an important problem among general surgeons with impacts and consequences for professionals, patients, and society. Considering that burnout is a preventable condition, systematic efforts to identify at-risk populations and to develop strategies to address burnout in surgeons are needed.


2021 ◽  
pp. 000348942110059
Author(s):  
Krystyne Basa ◽  
Nicolette Jabbour ◽  
Matthew Rohlfing ◽  
Sarah Schmoker ◽  
Claire M. Lawlor ◽  
...  

Objectives: This study compares hospital-generated online ratings to patient-generated online ratings in academic otolaryngology and evaluates physician factors influencing these results. Methods: Websites of academic otolaryngologists were assessed for inclusion of hospital-generated Press Ganey surveys. Corresponding scores on Healthgrades and Vitals.com were identified via internet search. Hospital ratings were compared with patient-generated ratings, including score, demographics, and number of ratings. All data was collected between July 15th 2019 and August 22nd 2019. Results: 742 academic otolaryngologists with hospital-generated ratings were identified. Mean hospital-generated rating was significantly higher ((4.70, 95% CI 4.69-4.72) than patient-generated rating (Vitals:4.26, 95% CI 4.18-4.34, and Healthgrades:4.02, 95% CI 3.87-4.18; P < .001). In patient-generated rating, an increased number of rating scores (>20) was associated with male gender, professor ranking, and >30 years in practice ( P < .005). Physician demographics did not impact number of ratings in hospital-generated setting. With patient-generated, lower aggregate score was associated with professor ranking ( P = .001). In hospital-generated, lower score was associated with >30+ years in practice ( P = .023). Across all platforms, comprehensive otolaryngologists and neurotologists/otologists were rated lower in comparison to other specialties (PGS: P < .001,Vitals: P = .027,Healthgrades: P = .016). Conclusion: Hospital-generated ratings yield higher mean scores than patient-generated platforms. Between sources, Healthgrades.com scores were lower than those of Vitals.com . Professors with >30 years of practice generated more reviews in patient-generated ratings, and these physicians were generally rated lower. Access to patient-generated ratings is universal and physicians should be aware of variability between online rating platforms as scores may affect referrals and practice patterns.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 237437352110077
Author(s):  
Daliah Wachs ◽  
Victoria Lorah ◽  
Allison Boynton ◽  
Amanda Hertzler ◽  
Brandon Nichols ◽  
...  

The purpose of this study was to explore patient perceptions of primary care providers and their offices relative to their physician’s philosophy (medical degree [MD] vs doctorate in osteopathic medicine [DO]), specialty (internal medicine vs family medicine), US region, and gender (male vs female). Using the Healthgrades website, the average satisfaction rating for the physician, office parameters, and wait time were collected and analyzed for 1267 physicians. We found female doctors tended to have lower ratings in the Midwest, and staff friendliness of female physicians were rated lower in the northwest. In the northeast, male and female MDs were rated more highly than DOs. Wait times varied regionally, with northeast and northwest regions having the shortest wait times. Overall satisfaction was generally high for most physicians. Regional differences in perception of a physician based on gender or degree may have roots in local culture, including proximity to a DO school, comfort with female physicians, and expectations for waiting times.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 861-862
Author(s):  
Z. Izadi ◽  
T. Johansson ◽  
J. LI ◽  
G. Schmajuk ◽  
J. Yazdany

Background:The Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) Registry was developed by the ACR to help rheumatologists improve quality of care and meet federal reporting requirements. In the current quality program administered by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services, rheumatologists are scored on quality measures, and performance is tied to financial incentives or penalties. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-specific quality measures can only be submitted through RISE to federal programs.Objectives:This study used data from the RISE registry to investigate rheumatologists’ federal reporting patterns on five RA-specific quality measures in 2018 and investigated the effect of practice characteristics on federal reporting of these measures.Methods:We analyzed data on all rheumatologists who continuously participated in RISE between Jan 2017 to Dec 2018 and who had patients eligible for at least one RA-specific measure. Five measures were examined: tuberculosis screening before biologic use, disease activity assessment, functional status assessment, assessment and classification of disease prognosis, and glucocorticoid management. We assessed whether or not rheumatologists reported specific quality measures via RISE. We investigated the effect of practice characteristics (practice structure; number of providers; geographic region) on the likelihood of reporting using adjusted analyses that controlled for measure performance (performance in 2018; change in performance from 2017; and performance relative to national average performance). Analyses accounted for clustering by practice.Results:Data from 799 providers from 207 practices managing 213,757 RA patients was examined. The most common practice structure was a single-specialty group practice (53%), followed by solo (28%) and multi-specialty group practice (12%). Most providers (73%) had patients eligible for all five RA quality measures. Federal reporting of quality measures through RISE varied significantly by provider, ranging from no reporting (60%) to reporting all eligible RA measures (12.2%). Reporting through RISE also varied significantly by quality measure and was highest for functional status assessment (36%) and lowest for assessment and classification of disease prognosis (20%). Small practices (1-4 providers) were more likely to report all eligible RA quality measures compared to larger practices (21%, 6%; p<0.001). In adjusted analyses, solo practices were more likely than single-specialty group practices to report RA measures (42%, 31%; p<0.027) while multispecialty group practices were less likely (18%, 31%; p<0.001). Additionally, higher performance in 2018 and performance ≥ the national average performance was associated with federal reporting of the measures through RISE (p≤0.004).Conclusion:Forty percent of U.S. rheumatologists participating in RISE used the registry for federal quality reporting. Physicians using RISE for reporting were disproportionately in small and solo practices, suggesting that the registry is fulfilling an important role in helping these practices participate in national quality reporting programs. Supporting small practices is especially important given the workforce shortages in rheumatology. We observed that practices reporting through RISE had higher measure performance than other participating practices, which suggests that the registry is facilitating quality improvement. Studies are ongoing to further investigate the impact of federal quality reporting programs and RISE participation on the quality of rheumatologic care in the United States.Disclaimer: This data was supported by the ACR’s RISE Registry. However, the views expressed represent those of the authors, not necessarily those of the ACR.Disclosure of Interests:Zara Izadi: None declared, Tracy Johansson: None declared, Jing Li: None declared, Gabriela Schmajuk Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Jinoos Yazdany Grant/research support from: Pfizer


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document