scholarly journals The Content and Nature of Narrative Comments on Swiss Physician Rating Websites: Analysis of 849 Comments (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart McLennan
Keyword(s):  
Interpersonal Skills ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Organization And Management ◽  
Negative Comments ◽  
Stratified Sample ◽  
Physician Rating ◽  
Quantitative Rating ◽  
Narrative Comments

BACKGROUND The majority of physician rating websites (PRWs) provide users the option to leave narrative comments about their physicians. Narrative comments potentially provide richer insights into patients’ experiences and feelings that cannot be fully captured in predefined quantitative rating scales and are increasingly being examined. However, the content and nature of narrative comments on Swiss PRWs has not been examined to date. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to examine (1) the types of issues raised in narrative comments on Swiss PRWs and (2) the evaluation tendencies of the narrative comments. METHODS A random stratified sample of 966 physicians was generated from the regions of Zürich and Geneva. Every selected physician was searched for on 3 PRWs (OkDoc, DocApp, and Medicosearch) and Google, and narrative comments were collected. Narrative comments were analyzed and classified according to a theoretical categorization framework of physician-, staff-, and practice-related issues. RESULTS The selected physicians had a total of 849 comments. In total, 43 subcategories addressing the physician (n=21), staff (n=8), and practice (n=14) were identified. None of the PRWs’ comments covered all 43 subcategories of the categorization framework; comments on Google covered 86% (37/43) of the subcategories, Medicosearch covered 72% (31/43), DocApp covered 60% (26/43), and OkDoc covered 56% (24/43). In total, 2441 distinct issues were identified within the 43 subcategories of the categorization framework; 83.65% (2042/2441) of the issues related to the physician, 6.63% (162/2441) related to the staff, and 9.70% (237/2441) related to the practice. Overall, 95% (41/43) of the subcategories of the categorization framework and 81.60% (1992/2441) of the distinct issues identified were concerning aspects of performance (interpersonal skills of the physician and staff, infrastructure, and organization and management of the practice) that are considered assessable by patients. Overall, 83.0% (705/849) of comments were classified as positive, 2.5% (21/849) as neutral, and 14.5% (123/849) as negative. However, there were significant differences between PRWs, regions, and specialty regarding negative comments: 90.2% (111/123) of negative comments were on Google, 74.7% (92/123) were regarding physicians in Zurich, and 73.2% (90/123) were from specialists. CONCLUSIONS From the narrative comments analyzed, it can be reported that interpersonal issues make up nearly half of all negative issues identified, and it is recommended that physicians should focus on improving these issues. The current suppression of negative comments by Swiss PRWs is concerning, and there is a need for a consensus-based criterion to be developed to determine which comments should be published publicly. Finally, it would be helpful if Swiss patients are made aware of the current large differences between Swiss PRWs regarding the frequency and nature of ratings to help them determine which PRW will provide them with the most useful information.

scholarly journals The Content and Nature of Narrative Comments on Swiss Physician Rating Websites: Analysis of 849 Comments

10.2196/14336 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. e14336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart McLennan
Keyword(s):  
Interpersonal Skills ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Organization And Management ◽  
Negative Comments ◽  
Stratified Sample ◽  
Physician Rating ◽  
Quantitative Rating ◽  
Narrative Comments

Background The majority of physician rating websites (PRWs) provide users the option to leave narrative comments about their physicians. Narrative comments potentially provide richer insights into patients’ experiences and feelings that cannot be fully captured in predefined quantitative rating scales and are increasingly being examined. However, the content and nature of narrative comments on Swiss PRWs has not been examined to date. Objective This study aimed to examine (1) the types of issues raised in narrative comments on Swiss PRWs and (2) the evaluation tendencies of the narrative comments. Methods A random stratified sample of 966 physicians was generated from the regions of Zürich and Geneva. Every selected physician was searched for on 3 PRWs (OkDoc, DocApp, and Medicosearch) and Google, and narrative comments were collected. Narrative comments were analyzed and classified according to a theoretical categorization framework of physician-, staff-, and practice-related issues. Results The selected physicians had a total of 849 comments. In total, 43 subcategories addressing the physician (n=21), staff (n=8), and practice (n=14) were identified. None of the PRWs’ comments covered all 43 subcategories of the categorization framework; comments on Google covered 86% (37/43) of the subcategories, Medicosearch covered 72% (31/43), DocApp covered 60% (26/43), and OkDoc covered 56% (24/43). In total, 2441 distinct issues were identified within the 43 subcategories of the categorization framework; 83.65% (2042/2441) of the issues related to the physician, 6.63% (162/2441) related to the staff, and 9.70% (237/2441) related to the practice. Overall, 95% (41/43) of the subcategories of the categorization framework and 81.60% (1992/2441) of the distinct issues identified were concerning aspects of performance (interpersonal skills of the physician and staff, infrastructure, and organization and management of the practice) that are considered assessable by patients. Overall, 83.0% (705/849) of comments were classified as positive, 2.5% (21/849) as neutral, and 14.5% (123/849) as negative. However, there were significant differences between PRWs, regions, and specialty regarding negative comments: 90.2% (111/123) of negative comments were on Google, 74.7% (92/123) were regarding physicians in Zurich, and 73.2% (90/123) were from specialists. Conclusions From the narrative comments analyzed, it can be reported that interpersonal issues make up nearly half of all negative issues identified, and it is recommended that physicians should focus on improving these issues. The current suppression of negative comments by Swiss PRWs is concerning, and there is a need for a consensus-based criterion to be developed to determine which comments should be published publicly. Finally, it would be helpful if Swiss patients are made aware of the current large differences between Swiss PRWs regarding the frequency and nature of ratings to help them determine which PRW will provide them with the most useful information.

scholarly journals Quantitative Ratings and Narrative Comments on Swiss Physician Rating Websites: Frequency Analysis (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart McLennan
Keyword(s):  
Health Care Quality ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
The Past ◽  
Reliable Source ◽  
Stratified Sample ◽  
Physician Rating ◽  
Quantitative Rating ◽  
First Time ◽  
Narrative Comments

BACKGROUND Physician rating websites (PRWs) have been developed as part of a wider move toward transparency around health care quality, and these allow patients to anonymously rate, comment, and discuss physicians’ quality on the Web. The first Swiss PRWs were established in 2008, at the same time as many international PRWs. However, there has been limited research conducted on PRWs in Switzerland to date. International research has indicated that a key shortcoming of PRWs is that they have an insufficient number of ratings. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to examine the frequency of quantitative ratings and narrative comments on the Swiss PRWs. METHODS In November 2017, a random stratified sample of 966 physicians was generated from the regions of Zürich and Geneva. Every selected physician was searched for on 4 rating websites (OkDoc, DocApp, Medicosearch, and Google) between November 2017 and July 2018. It was recorded whether the physician could be identified, what the physician’s quantitative rating was, and whether the physician had received narrative comments. In addition, Alexa Internet was used to examine the number of visitors to the PRWs, compared with other websites. RESULTS Overall, the portion of physicians able to be identified on the PRWs ranged from 42.4% (410/966) on OkDoc to 87.3% (843/966) on DocApp. Of the identifiable physicians, only a few of the selected physicians had been rated quantitatively (4.5% [38/843] on DocApp to 49.8% [273/548] on Google) or received narrative comments (4.5% [38/843] on DocApp to 31.2% [171/548] on Google) at least once. Rated physicians also had, on average, a low number of quantitative ratings (1.47 ratings on OkDoc to 3.74 rating on Google) and narrative comments (1.23 comment on OkDoc to 3.03 comments on Google). All 3 websites allowing ratings used the same rating scale (1-5 stars) and had a very positive average rating: DocApp (4.71), Medicosearch (4.69), and Google (4.41). There were significant differences among the PRWs (with the majority of ratings being posted on Google in past 2 years) and regions (with physicians in Zurich more likely to have been rated and have more ratings on average). Only Google (position 1) and Medicosearch (position 8358) are placed among the top 10,000 visited websites in Switzerland. CONCLUSIONS It appears that this is the first time Google has been included in a study examining physician ratings internationally and it is noticeable how Google has had substantially more ratings than the 3 dedicated PRWs in Switzerland over the past 2 and a half years. Overall, this study indicates that Swiss PRWs are not yet a reliable source of unbiased information regarding patient experiences and satisfaction with Swiss physicians; many selected physicians were unable to be identified, only a few physicians had been rated, and the ratings posted were overwhelmingly positive.

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 Evaluering van interpersoonlike vaardighede

Curationis ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Poggenpoel
Keyword(s):  
Interpersonal Skills ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Specific Situation ◽  
Evaluation Instrument ◽  
Interpersonal Contact ◽  
Numerical Rating ◽  
Behaviour Rating ◽  
Helping Process ◽  
And Training

One of the major goals of nursing is to offer meaningful health services to individuals and groups who need help. This helping process takes place through interpersonal contact between the nurse and individuals and groups. It is important that the nurse has interpersonal skills and training in nursing should also include opportunities for exercising these skills. Observation scales are the most appropriate technique for evaluating the effectiveness of interpersonal skills. There are three types of observation scales: — The anecdotal report: a factual description of a student’s behaviour. — Rating scales including numerical rating scales, graphic rating scales and descriptive graphic scales. — Checklists were evaluation of characteristics are limited to a simple present-absent judgement. An instrument (graphic descriptive rating scale) is held as an example of an evaluation instrument that can be used to judge core aspects associated to the nurse’s interpersonal skills in a specific situation.

Narrative Comments about Urologists on Physician Rating Websites Provide Insight into What Drives Patient Satisfaction Surveys

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 222-226
Author(s):  
Connor G. Policastro ◽  
Bryan Carnes ◽  
Derek Friedman ◽  
Natasha Ginzburg ◽  
Elizabeth K. Ferry
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Physician Rating ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Narrative Comments ◽  
Satisfaction Surveys

Use of Quantitative Rating Scales to Assess Outcome in Schizophrenia Prevention Studies

2000 ◽  
Vol 34 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. A150-A160
Author(s):  
Sean A. Halpin ◽  
Vaughan J. Carr
Keyword(s):  
Primary Prevention ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Role Functioning ◽  
Global Functioning ◽  
Major Barrier ◽  
Potential Value ◽  
Prevention Studies ◽  
Quantitative Rating

Objective To present a summary of quantitative scales relevant to schizophrenia prevention studies. Method Fifteen scales were reviewed and summarised in terms of structure, domains assessed, previous use and psychometric properties. Instruments of symptom measurement, role functioning and global functioning were considered, along with multidimensional instruments and other scales of potential interest to research in schizophrenia prevention. Results and conclusions No scales of potential value in measuring premorbid risk for schizophrenia have been sufficiently tested for reliability and validity in the context of primary prevention of schizophrenia. The absence of a sufficiently sensitive and specific means for identifying those at high risk of schizophrenia before the onset of psychosis is a major barrier to valid measurement of the outcome of attempts at primary prevention. However, there have been advances in the development of instruments relevant to the goals of secondary and tertiary prevention. Most studies use instruments developed for patients with established psychoses and have applied them to early psychosis groups with some success, although possible ‘floor’ effects may confound measurement in the ‘prodromal’ period.

scholarly journals Identifying patients' criteria for assessment of doctors on Polish physician rating websites

2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-196
Author(s):  
Radosław Tymiński ◽  
Michał Walczewski ◽  
Michał Wieczorek
Keyword(s):  
Communication Skills ◽  
Lower Number ◽  
Positive Assessment ◽  
Physician Rating ◽  
Doctor's Office ◽  
Physician Perception ◽  
Narrative Comments ◽  
Culture And Communication

Introduction. Increasingly popular physician ranking websites have lately become a significant factor in choosing a physician.Aim. The aim of this study was to establish the criteria by which patients assessed doctors on PRWs and which of these criteria were the most crucial during the general assessment of the physicians.Material and methods. Selected narrative comments from two Polish PRWs: znanylekarz.pl and rankinglekarzy.pl were analysed on the basis of the following criteria: kindness and propriety, punctuality, communication with patients, condition and equipment of a doctor's office, length of the appointment, cost of the medical advice.Results. Out of 4375 eligible comments kindness and propriety was assessed most frequently (3012 comments, 68.85%), next was communication, which was evaluated in 2343 comments (53.55%). Amongst the 3012 comments with assessed kindness and propriety, 77.66% (2339 comments) were described positively. In the group of comments with positively evaluated kindness and propriety 2230 comments (95.34 %) were generally positive. Furthermore, communication with patient was assessed in 2343 comments and in 1827 cases (77.98%) the assessment was positive. 1810 comments with positively evaluated communication were generally positive (99.07%).Conclusions. There is a connection between the patients' positive assessment and physician's kindness, personal culture and communication skills; if physicians focus on the aforementioned abilities, it might lead to better physician perception, higher effectiveness of treatment and the lower number of potential law suits.

Physician Rating Scales Do Not Accurately Rate Physicians

Orthopedics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. e445-e456 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew B. Burn ◽  
David M. Lintner ◽  
Pedro E. Cosculluela ◽  
Kevin E. Varner ◽  
Shari R. Liberman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scales ◽  
Physician Rating
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document