Online Ratings of Facial Plastic Surgeons: Worthwhile Additions to Conventional Patient Experience Surveys

Bovenzi, Cory D.; Manges, Kirstin; Krein, Howard; Heffelfinger, Ryan

doi:10.1089/fpsam.2020.0049

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, although patient satisfaction surveys may be a tool to aid in quality performance evaluations, they should still be used judiciously as there may be unintended consequences if healthcare quality measurements are only reflected by patient perception. Additionally, the NPS scoring system may have limitations and not fully encompass a patient's experience, a limitation that applies to many patient experience surveys [ 8 , 11 , 12 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Experience Ratings: What Do Breast Surgery Patients Care About?

Fan¹,

Imeokparia²,

Ludwig³

et al. 2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionPatient experience is essential in the overall care; physicians often receive patient reviews evaluating their consultation encounters. Patient experience surveys can be a helpful tool to identify areas to target for improvement. We sought to evaluate what factors influenced breast surgery patients' reviews of their clinic visits. MethodsProspective surveys from 2018-2020 were reviewed from a single institution. Surveys were sent to all patients within 48 hours after visiting one of our breast surgery clinics, and patients were asked their preferred mode of contact for the survey. Patients responded to surveys with scores of 0-10, with 0 as "not likely" and 10 "extremely likely" to recommend the provider's office. Scores 0-6 were considered negative, 7-8 neutral, and 9-10 positive. Positive/Negative comments from patients were reviewed and classified according to mention of surgeon, clinic staff/team, clinic processing, and facility amenities. Results744 out of 2205 patients contacted responded to the survey, resulting in a 33.7% response rate. Of this cohort, 47.6% (354/744) were new patients, and 52.4% (390/744) were established patients. Interactive voice response (IVR) and email, per patient indicated preferred mode of survey communication, had the highest responses. The average patient score was 9.5. Most ratings were positive (91.3%, 679/744), followed by neutral comments (5.2%, 39/744). There were 3.5% (26/744) which were negative ratings. Of those who responded, 47.7% (355/744) left a comment with their score. Surgeon-specific remarks were often noted in positive comments, followed by clinic staff/team comments. Negative comments most commonly referenced clinic processes. ConclusionPatient satisfaction surveys provide a window into creating the best patient experience. Further efforts to address these factors affecting patient experiences should be made to continue improving patient care.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Experience Ratings: What Do Breast Surgery Patients Care About?

Fan¹,

Imeokparia²,

Ludwig³

et al. 2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Physician rating sites only permit a 1-way platform for patients to post about their experience without the means of responding to a review. Patient opinions are not formed solely on surgeon performance but are often linked to office features 17 and unaffected by the sex of the surgeon 17,27 ; however, this highlights how nonsurgeon factors significantly influence patient experience and thus surgeon rank. Nevertheless, patients tend to trust online resources and place a high importance on online ratings 28 : 85% of patients trust an online recommendation as much as a recommendation from a friend or family member 29 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Digital Footprint of Academic Plastic Surgeons

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The digital age and global pandemic have transformed the way patients select their plastic surgeon. However, as more patients turn to online resources, there is little information on the digital presence of academic plastic surgeons. Methods We identified all academic faculty from integrated and independent plastic surgery residency programs. Using a Google-based custom search, the top 10 search results for each surgeon were extracted and categorized as surgeon noncontrolled (eg, physician rating websites) or controlled (eg, social media, institutional, and research profiles). Results Eight hundred four academic plastic surgeons were included. Most search results were surgeon-noncontrolled sites (57%, n = 4547). Being male (odds ratio [OR], 0.60, P = 0.0020) and holding a higher academic rank (OR = 0.61, P < 0.0001) significantly decreased the prevalence of physician rating websites, whereas career length was significantly associated with a greater number of rating websites (OR = 1.04, P < 0.0001). Surgeon-controlled websites were significantly influenced by academic rank and years in practice; higher academic rank was associated with more social media platforms (OR = 1.42, P = 0.0008), institutional webpages (OR = 1.57, P < 0.0001), and research profiles (OR = 1.62, P = 0.0008). Conversely, longer career duration was a predictor for fewer social media platforms (OR = 0.95, P < 0.0001) and institutional webpages (OR = 0.95, P < 0.0001). Conclusions Academic plastic surgeons do not hold control of the majority of their search results. However, digitally savvy plastic surgeons can focus attention by building on certain areas to optimize their digital footprint. This study can serve as a guide for academic plastic surgeons wishing to control their online presence.

show abstract

“…However, most studies examining PRWs ratings have typically focused on a certain year (eg, [13,18,21]), a certain medical specialty (eg, [22,23,[36][37][38][39][40]), certain cities or regions (eg, [14,26,41]), or with a (more or less) randomly selected sample of physicians or ratings (eg, [14,21,26,36,41]). There is therefore a need for a more comprehensive examination of PRW ratings, to reveal a more generalizable view of ratings and allow trends in rating habits to be identified.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Emmert¹,

McLennan²

2021

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Online Ratings of Facial Plastic Surgeons: Worthwhile Additions to Conventional Patient Experience Surveys

Cited by 7 publications

References 15 publications

Patient Experience Ratings: What Do Breast Surgery Patients Care About?

Patient Experience Ratings: What Do Breast Surgery Patients Care About?

The Digital Footprint of Academic Plastic Surgeons

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About