scholarly journals One Decade of Online Patient Feedback: Longitudinal Analysis of Data From a German Physician Rating Website

10.2196/24229 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. e24229
Author(s):  
Martin Emmert ◽  
Stuart McLennan
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scale ◽  
Essential Element ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Patient Feedback ◽  
Point Rating Scale ◽  
Online Ratings ◽  
German School ◽  
Physician Rating ◽  
Physician Rating Website

Background Feedback from patients is an essential element of a patient-oriented health care system. Physician rating websites (PRWs) are a key way patients can provide feedback online. This study analyzes an entire decade of online ratings for all medical specialties on a German PRW. Objective The aim of this study was to examine how ratings posted on a German PRW have developed over the past decade. In particular, it aimed to explore (1) the distribution of ratings according to time-related aspects (year, month, day of the week, and hour of the day) between 2010 and 2019, (2) the number of physicians with ratings, (3) the average number of ratings per physician, (4) the average rating, (5) whether differences exist between medical specialties, and (6) the characteristics of the patients rating physicians. Methods All scaled-survey online ratings that were posted on the German PRW jameda between 2010 and 2019 were obtained. Results In total, 1,906,146 ratings were posted on jameda between 2010 and 2019 for 127,921 physicians. The number of rated physicians increased constantly from 19,305 in 2010 to 82,511 in 2018. The average number of ratings per rated physicians increased from 1.65 (SD 1.56) in 2010 to 3.19 (SD 4.69) in 2019. Overall, 75.2% (1,432,624/1,906,146) of all ratings were in the best rating category of “very good,” and 5.7% (107,912/1,906,146) of the ratings were in the lowest category of “insufficient.” However, the mean of all ratings was 1.76 (SD 1.53) on the German school grade 6-point rating scale (1 being the best) with a relatively constant distribution over time. General practitioners, internists, and gynecologists received the highest number of ratings (343,242, 266,899, and 232,914, respectively). Male patients, those of higher age, and those covered by private health insurance gave significantly (P<.001) more favorable evaluations compared to their counterparts. Physicians with a lower number of ratings tended to receive ratings across the rating scale, while physicians with a higher number of ratings tended to have better ratings. Physicians with between 21 and 50 online ratings received the lowest ratings (mean 1.95, SD 0.84), while physicians with >100 ratings received the best ratings (mean 1.34, SD 0.47). Conclusions This study is one of the most comprehensive analyses of PRW ratings to date. More than half of all German physicians have been rated on jameda each year since 2016, and the overall average number of ratings per rated physicians nearly doubled over the decade. Nevertheless, we could also observe a decline in the number of ratings over the last 2 years. Future studies should investigate the most recent development in the number of ratings on both other German and international PRWs as well as reasons for the heterogeneity in online ratings by medical specialty.

scholarly journals One Decade of Online Patient Feedback: Longitudinal Analysis of Data From a German Physician Rating Website (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Emmert ◽  
Stuart McLennan
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scale ◽  
Essential Element ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Patient Feedback ◽  
Point Rating Scale ◽  
Online Ratings ◽  
German School ◽  
Physician Rating ◽  
Physician Rating Website

BACKGROUND Feedback from patients is an essential element of a patient-oriented health care system. Physician rating websites (PRWs) are a key way patients can provide feedback online. This study analyzes an entire decade of online ratings for all medical specialties on a German PRW. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to examine how ratings posted on a German PRW have developed over the past decade. In particular, it aimed to explore (1) the distribution of ratings according to time-related aspects (year, month, day of the week, and hour of the day) between 2010 and 2019, (2) the number of physicians with ratings, (3) the average number of ratings per physician, (4) the average rating, (5) whether differences exist between medical specialties, and (6) the characteristics of the patients rating physicians. METHODS All scaled-survey online ratings that were posted on the German PRW jameda between 2010 and 2019 were obtained. RESULTS In total, 1,906,146 ratings were posted on jameda between 2010 and 2019 for 127,921 physicians. The number of rated physicians increased constantly from 19,305 in 2010 to 82,511 in 2018. The average number of ratings per rated physicians increased from 1.65 (SD 1.56) in 2010 to 3.19 (SD 4.69) in 2019. Overall, 75.2% (1,432,624/1,906,146) of all ratings were in the best rating category of “very good,” and 5.7% (107,912/1,906,146) of the ratings were in the lowest category of “insufficient.” However, the mean of all ratings was 1.76 (SD 1.53) on the German school grade 6-point rating scale (1 being the best) with a relatively constant distribution over time. General practitioners, internists, and gynecologists received the highest number of ratings (343,242, 266,899, and 232,914, respectively). Male patients, those of higher age, and those covered by private health insurance gave significantly (<i>P</i>&lt;.001) more favorable evaluations compared to their counterparts. Physicians with a lower number of ratings tended to receive ratings across the rating scale, while physicians with a higher number of ratings tended to have better ratings. Physicians with between 21 and 50 online ratings received the lowest ratings (mean 1.95, SD 0.84), while physicians with &gt;100 ratings received the best ratings (mean 1.34, SD 0.47). CONCLUSIONS This study is one of the most comprehensive analyses of PRW ratings to date. More than half of all German physicians have been rated on jameda each year since 2016, and the overall average number of ratings per rated physicians nearly doubled over the decade. Nevertheless, we could also observe a decline in the number of ratings over the last 2 years. Future studies should investigate the most recent development in the number of ratings on both other German and international PRWs as well as reasons for the heterogeneity in online ratings by medical specialty.

scholarly journals Rejected Online Feedback From a Swiss Physician Rating Website Between 2008 and 2017: Analysis of 2352 Ratings (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart McLennan
Keyword(s):  
Financial Incentives ◽  
German Language ◽  
Patient Feedback ◽  
Narrative Comment ◽  
Satisfaction With Treatment ◽  
Physician Rating ◽  
Quantitative Rating ◽  
Physician Rating Website ◽  
Online Feedback ◽  
Narrative Comments

BACKGROUND Previous research internationally has only analyzed publicly available feedback on physician rating websites (PRWs). However, it appears that many PRWs are not publishing all the feedback they receive. Analysis of this rejected feedback could provide a better understanding of the types of feedback that are currently not published and whether this is appropriate. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to examine (1) the number of patient feedback rejected from the Swiss PRW Medicosearch, (2) the evaluation tendencies of the rejected patient feedback, and (3) the types of issues raised in the rejected narrative comments. METHODS The Swiss PRW Medicosearch provided all the feedback that had been rejected between September 16, 2008, and September 22, 2017. The feedback were analyzed and classified according to a theoretical categorization framework of physician-, staff-, and practice-related issues. RESULTS Between September 16, 2008, and September 22, 2017, Medicosearch rejected a total of 2352 patient feedback. The majority of feedback rejected (1754/2352, 74.6%) had narrative comments in the German language. However, 11.9% (279/2352) of the rejected feedback only provided a quantitative rating with no narrative comment. Overall, 25% (588/2352) of the rejected feedback were positive, 18.7% (440/2352) were neutral, and 56% (1316/2352) were negative. The average rating of the rejected feedback was 2.8 (SD 1.4). In total, 44 subcategories addressing the physician (n=20), staff (n=9), and practice (n=15) were identified. In total, 3804 distinct issues were identified within the 44 subcategories of the categorization framework; 75% (2854/3804) of the issues were related to the physician, 6.4% (242/3804) were related to the staff, and 18.6% (708/3804) were related to the practice. Frequently mentioned issues identified from the rejected feedback included (1) satisfaction with treatment (533/1903, 28%); (2) the overall assessment of the physician (392/1903, 20.6%); (3) recommending the physician (345/1903, 18.1%); (4) the physician’s communication (261/1903, 13.7%); (5) the physician’s caring attitude (220/1903, 11.6%); and (6) the physician’s friendliness (203/1903, 10.6%). CONCLUSIONS It is unclear why the majority of the feedback were rejected. This is problematic and raises concerns that online patient feedback are being inappropriately manipulated. If online patient feedback is going to be collected, there needs to be clear policies and practices about how this is handled. It cannot be left to the whims of PRWs, who may have financial incentives to suppress negative feedback, to decide which feedback is or is not published online. Further research is needed to examine how many PRWs are using criteria for determining which feedback is published or not, what those criteria are, and what measures PRWs are using to address the manipulation of online patient feedback.

scholarly journals Rejected Online Feedback From a Swiss Physician Rating Website Between 2008 and 2017: Analysis of 2352 Ratings

10.2196/18374 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. e18374
Author(s):  
Stuart McLennan
Keyword(s):  
Financial Incentives ◽  
German Language ◽  
Patient Feedback ◽  
Narrative Comment ◽  
Satisfaction With Treatment ◽  
Physician Rating ◽  
Quantitative Rating ◽  
Physician Rating Website ◽  
Online Feedback ◽  
Narrative Comments

Background Previous research internationally has only analyzed publicly available feedback on physician rating websites (PRWs). However, it appears that many PRWs are not publishing all the feedback they receive. Analysis of this rejected feedback could provide a better understanding of the types of feedback that are currently not published and whether this is appropriate. Objective The aim of this study was to examine (1) the number of patient feedback rejected from the Swiss PRW Medicosearch, (2) the evaluation tendencies of the rejected patient feedback, and (3) the types of issues raised in the rejected narrative comments. Methods The Swiss PRW Medicosearch provided all the feedback that had been rejected between September 16, 2008, and September 22, 2017. The feedback were analyzed and classified according to a theoretical categorization framework of physician-, staff-, and practice-related issues. Results Between September 16, 2008, and September 22, 2017, Medicosearch rejected a total of 2352 patient feedback. The majority of feedback rejected (1754/2352, 74.6%) had narrative comments in the German language. However, 11.9% (279/2352) of the rejected feedback only provided a quantitative rating with no narrative comment. Overall, 25% (588/2352) of the rejected feedback were positive, 18.7% (440/2352) were neutral, and 56% (1316/2352) were negative. The average rating of the rejected feedback was 2.8 (SD 1.4). In total, 44 subcategories addressing the physician (n=20), staff (n=9), and practice (n=15) were identified. In total, 3804 distinct issues were identified within the 44 subcategories of the categorization framework; 75% (2854/3804) of the issues were related to the physician, 6.4% (242/3804) were related to the staff, and 18.6% (708/3804) were related to the practice. Frequently mentioned issues identified from the rejected feedback included (1) satisfaction with treatment (533/1903, 28%); (2) the overall assessment of the physician (392/1903, 20.6%); (3) recommending the physician (345/1903, 18.1%); (4) the physician’s communication (261/1903, 13.7%); (5) the physician’s caring attitude (220/1903, 11.6%); and (6) the physician’s friendliness (203/1903, 10.6%). Conclusions It is unclear why the majority of the feedback were rejected. This is problematic and raises concerns that online patient feedback are being inappropriately manipulated. If online patient feedback is going to be collected, there needs to be clear policies and practices about how this is handled. It cannot be left to the whims of PRWs, who may have financial incentives to suppress negative feedback, to decide which feedback is or is not published online. Further research is needed to examine how many PRWs are using criteria for determining which feedback is published or not, what those criteria are, and what measures PRWs are using to address the manipulation of online patient feedback.

scholarly journals Clinicians’ Knowledge and Attitudes About Delirium Detection and Management

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 519-520
Author(s):  
Priyanka Shrestha ◽  
Erica Husser ◽  
Diane Berish ◽  
Long Ngo ◽  
Marie Boltz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scale ◽  
P Value ◽  
Clinical Implementation ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Knowledge And Attitudes ◽  
Point Rating Scale ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
Strongly Agree ◽  
High Level

Abstract Delirium is a serious and potentially life-threatening problem, but it remains clinically under-recognized. Various factors contribute to this under-recognition, including limited understanding of delirium, insufficient training and application of delirium assessments, potential stigma for the patient and increased workload for the clinician. As a part of an NIH funded study testing a rapid two-step delirium identification protocol at two hospitals in the U.S. (one urban and one rural), clinicians completed a 12-item survey to assess their knowledge and attitudes about delirium and their confidence in preventing and managing delirium. Survey response options followed a 5-point rating scale (strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree, strongly agree). The sample for this analysis included 399 clinicians (MDs=53; RNs=235; CNAs=111). Chi-square was used to test for group differences between clinician types. Less than half of the clinicians reported agreeing with the statement, “delirium is largely preventable” (MDs: 47%; RN: 44%; CNA: 41%, p-value=0.021). MDs and RNs indicated a high level of confidence in recognizing delirium while CNAs endorsed lower levels of confidence (MDs: 87%; RN: 81%; CNA: 65%, p-value=0.001). All types of clinicians reported lower confidence in managing delirium (MDs: 29%; RN: 36%; CNA: 44%, p-value=0.117). 47% of CNAs and 37% of RNs agreed there is a need for additional training in caring for persons with delirium while only 21% of MDs agreed (p = 0.031). Understanding how different types of clinicians think and feel about delirium will inform training and communication initiatives, clinical implementation, and research on best practices for delirium identification and management.

scholarly journals Decreased Medical Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic – A Comprehensive Analysis of Radiological Examinations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Aigner ◽  
Bernd Hamm ◽  
Florian Nima Fleckenstein ◽  
Tazio Maleitzke ◽  
Georg Böning ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Care ◽  
Control Period ◽  
Surrogate Marker ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Case Volume ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Radiological Examinations

Objectives As a cross-section discipline within the hospital infrastructure, radiological departments might be able to provide important information regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare. The goal of this study was to quantify changes in medical care during the first wave of the pandemic using radiological examinations as a comprehensive surrogate marker and to determine potential future workload. Methods A retrospective analysis of all radiological examinations during the first wave of the pandemic was performed. The number of examinations was compared to time-matched control periods. Furthermore, an in-depth analysis of radiological examinations attributed to various medical specialties was conducted and postponed examinations were extrapolated to calculate additional workload in the near future. Results A total of 596,760 examinations were analyzed. Overall case volumes decreased by an average of 41 % during the shutdown compared to the control period. The most affected radiological modalities were sonography (–54 %), X-ray (–47 %) followed by MRI (–42 %). The most affected medical specialty was trauma and orthopedics (–60 % case volume) followed by general surgery (–49 %). Examination numbers increased during the post-shutdown period leading to a predicted additional workload of up to 22 %. Conclusion This study shows a marked decrease in radiological examinations in total and among several core medical specialties, indicating a significant reduction in medical care during the first COVID-19 shutdown. Key Points: Citation Format

Bridging the Gap With Choosing Wisely Recommendations: What Laboratory Topics Matter Most to Other Medical Specialty Societies?

2019 ◽  
Vol 152 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S143-S143
Author(s):  
Barbara Caldwell
Keyword(s):  
Women’S Health ◽  
Women's Health ◽  
Laboratory Tests ◽  
Pap Smear ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Laboratory Medicine ◽  
Choosing Wisely ◽  
Topic Area ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Smear Testing

Abstract Introduction This study sought to evaluate the nature and frequency of laboratory recommendations made by medical societies other than ASCP. Methods Review of all 2012 to 2018 ABIM Choosing Wisely (CW) non-ASCP laboratory recommendations and categorization of recommendations per topic area. Results There are 107 total recommendations made by other medical specialties that involve laboratory medicine. The most common recommendations are (1) Transfusion Medicine: to minimize transfusion of PRCs (19 recommendations, 18%); (2) Women’s Health: Pap smear testing, other women’s health testing (18 recommendations, 17%); and (3) General Laboratory: reducing repetitive routine laboratory tests (10 recommendations, 9%). Most (64, 60%) recommendations addressed screening while 29 (27%) focused on treatment and 14 (13%) were related to monitoring disease. Conclusion Almost one-half (44%) of all recommendations fell into three common areas and there were more recommendations related to screening for disease than for treatment or monitoring. For Choosing Wisely to achieve increasing success, increasing efforts are needed to disseminate this information, promote multidisciplinary effective test utilization, and encourage continued laboratory medicine recommendations from all medical stakeholders.

scholarly journals Changes in prevalence of workplace violence against doctors in all medical specialties in Norway between 1993 and 2014: a repeated cross-sectional survey

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. e017757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid Hjulstad Johansen ◽  
Valborg Baste ◽  
Judith Rosta ◽  
Olaf G Aasland ◽  
Tone Morken
Keyword(s):  
Relative Risk ◽  
Workplace Violence ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Work Time ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Work Settings ◽  
Representative Samples ◽  
Violence Against Doctors

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate whether reported prevalence of experienced threats, real acts of violence and debilitating fear of violence among Norwegian doctors have increased over the last two decades.DesignRepeated cross-sectional survey.SettingAll healthcare levels and medical specialties in Norway.ParticipantsRepresentative samples of Norwegian doctors in 1993 (n=2628) and 2014 (n=1158).Main outcome measuresRelative risk (RR) of self-reported prevalence of work-time experiences of threats and real acts of violence, and of being physically or psychologically unfit during the last 12 months due to fear of violence, in 2014 compared with 1993, adjusted by age, gender and medical specialty.ResultsThere were no differences in self-reported threats (adjusted RR=1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.08) or real acts (adjusted RR=0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.03) of violence when comparing 2014 with 1993. The proportion of doctors who had felt unfit due to fear of violence decreased from 1993 to 2014 (adjusted RR=0.53, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.73). Although still above average, the proportion of doctors in psychiatry who reported real acts of violence decreased substantially from 1993 to 2014 (adjusted RR=0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95).ConclusionsA substantial proportion of doctors experience threats and real acts of violence during their work-time career, but there was no evidence that workplace violence has increased over the last two decades. Still, the issue needs to be addressed as part of the doctors’ education and within work settings.

Application of Psychometric Theory to the Measurement of Voice Quality Using Rating Scales

2005 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahul Shrivastav ◽  
Christine M. Sapienza ◽  
Vuday Nandur
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Errors ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Voice Quality ◽  
Random Order ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Poor Agreement ◽  
Psychometric Theory ◽  
Point Rating Scale ◽  
Exact Agreement

Rating scales are commonly used to study voice quality. However, recent research has demonstrated that perceptual measures of voice quality obtained using rating scales suffer from poor interjudge agreement and reliability, especially in the midrange of the scale. These findings, along with those obtained using multidimensional scaling (MDS), have been interpreted to show that listeners perceive voice quality in an idiosyncratic manner. Based on psychometric theory, the present research explored an alternative explanation for the poor interlistener agreement observed in previous research. This approach suggests that poor agreement between listeners may result, in part, from measurement errors related to a variety of factors rather than true differences in the perception of voice quality. In this study, 10 listeners rated breathiness for 27 vowel stimuli using a 5-point rating scale. Each stimulus was presented to the listeners 10 times in random order. Interlistener agreement and reliability were calculated from these ratings. Agreement and reliability were observed to improve when multiple ratings of each stimulus from each listener were averaged and when standardized scores were used instead of absolute ratings. The probability of exact agreement was found to be approximately .9 when using averaged ratings and standardized scores. In contrast, the probability of exact agreement was only .4 when a single rating from each listener was used to measure agreement. These findings support the hypothesis that poor agreement reported in past research partly arises from errors in measurement rather than individual differences in the perception of voice quality.

Level of consumer awareness among the college students

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (01) ◽  
pp. 10-18
Author(s):  
Dhavindra Rawal
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Business Strategies ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Buying Behavior ◽  
Consumer Awareness ◽  
Point Rating Scale ◽  
Management Students ◽  
Purposive Sample ◽  
Awareness Level

This study aims at examining consumers’ awareness level towards labeling information of product in marketing practices based on an empirical study of college students in Tikapur  Municipality, Kailali. This study depends on a purposive sample of 180 students whichhave been selected from management, education and humanities faculties studying in graduate level at Tikapur Multiple Campus and Birendra Vidhya Mandir Campus at Tikapur, with a structured questionnaire to measure consumer buying behavior regarding the basic labeling information of packaged products, utilizing a four-point rating scale for measurement. The overall findings communicate that the aggregate consumers’ awareness level is low towards labeling information of packaged product in marketing practices. Furthermore, awareness level of management students is high in comparison to nonmanagementstudent.Similarly,maleconsumersarefoundmoreawarethanfemale.Thisstudyexploresthestatusandlevelofconsumerawarenessforthefirsttimeinstudyareaalongwiththesuggestionstoconsumers,businessmen,consumerforum,governmentunitsandpublic policymakers to improve the current status of consumer awareness, with implications for better business strategies and more useful to  consumerism.

Physician Rating Websites in the United States: A systematic review (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meenakshi Bhilwar ◽  
Suzanne A Boren ◽  
Kunal Bhatia
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Healthcare Quality ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
Quality Of Healthcare ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Us ◽  
Online Ratings ◽  
Physician Rating ◽  
Physician Relationship

BACKGROUND Physician rating websites are gaining popularity, however, data on their usability and influence on healthcare quality is limited. OBJECTIVE to provide an overview of physician rating websites in the US and find answers for the following questions: 1. What are the most commonly studied/rated physician rating websites in the US? 2. Which specialty of physicians/providers are most commonly studied/rated? 3. How many physicians were rated on the studied PRWs? 4. What is the average number of ratings on these websites and are they positive or negative? 5. How does the profile of providers influence their rating? 6. How are PRWs associated with healthcare quality? 7. How PRWs are associated with patient-physician relationship? METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted through Medline for peer-reviewed articles in the English language on studies conducted in the US. RESULTS 33 articles published in peer-reviewed journals were included in the final review. Most of the studies were conducted on surgeons. A significant number of studies observed no correlation of online ratings with gender, geographic location, and years of experience. Additionally, no significant correlation was found between PRWs and healthcare quality. CONCLUSIONS It has been observed that with the current structure of these websites, the reliability of information available on them is rather questionable, and hence more research is required to assess the credibility of these websites along with their cost-effectiveness, effect on the patient-physician relationship, and quality of healthcare delivery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document