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.

What do patients say about their physicians? An analysis of 3000 narrative comments posted on a German physician rating website

Health Policy ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 118 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Emmert ◽  
Florian Meier ◽  
Ann-Kathrin Heider ◽  
Christoph Dürr ◽  
Uwe Sander
Keyword(s):  
Physician Rating ◽  
Physician Rating Website ◽  
German Physician ◽  
Narrative Comments

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 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 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 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 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 Tracking patients healthcare experiences during the COVID-19 outbreak: Topic modeling and sentiment analysis of doctor reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3A) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adnan M. Shah ◽  
◽  
Xiangbin Yan ◽  
Samia tariq ◽  
Syed Asad A. Shah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Sentiment Analysis ◽  
Topic Modeling ◽  
Swot Analysis ◽  
Vaccine Development ◽  
Time Slice ◽  
Healthcare Organizations ◽  
Physician Rating ◽  
Physician Rating Website

Emerging voices of patients in the form of opinions and expectations about the quality of care can improve healthcare service quality. A large volume of patients’ opinions as online doctor reviews (ODRs) are available online to access, analyze, and improve patients’ perceptions. This paper aims to explore COVID-19-related conversations, complaints, and sentiments using ODRs posted by users of the physician rating website. We analyzed 96,234 ODRs of 5,621 physicians from a prominent health rating website in the United Kingdom (Iwantgreatcare.org) in threetime slices (i.e., from February 01 to October 31, 2020). We employed machine learning approach, dynamic topic modeling, to identify prominent bigrams, salient topics and labels, sentiments embedded in reviews and topics, and patient-perceived root cause and strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analyses to examine SWOT for healthcare organizations. This method finds a total of 30 latent topics with 10 topics across each time slice. The current study identified new discussion topics about COVID-19 occurring from time slice 1 to time slice 3, such as news about the COVID-19 pandemic, violence against the lockdown, quarantine process and quarantine centers at different locations, and vaccine development/treatment to stop virus spread. Sentiment analysis reveals that fear for novel pathogen prevails across all topics. Based on the SWOT analysis, our findings provide a clue for doctors, hospitals, and government officials to enhance patients’ satisfaction and minimize dissatisfaction by satisfying their needs and improve the quality of care during the COVID-19 crisis.

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
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document