What Patients Think About Their Interventional Radiologists: Assessment Using a Leading Physician Ratings Website

Obele, Chika C.; Duszak, Richard; Hawkins, C. Matthew; Rosenkrantz, Andrew B.

doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2016.10.013

Cited by 17 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar studies evaluating physician online reviews found similar results of increasing wait time correlating with a decreasing online rating. 1,12,15 Trehan et al found that negative reviews are more likely to be caused by surgeon-independent factors, while positive reviews were more likely to be due to the surgeon's ability. 14 Factors such as wait time, staff friendliness, and office environment are important to maintain in order to avoid poor reviews online.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do physician demographics, training, social media usage, online presence, and wait times influence online physician review scores for spine surgeons?

Donnally

McCormick²,

Li³

et al. 2019

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study was to assess the impact of certain demographics, social media usage, and physician review website variables for spine surgeons across Healthgrades.com (Healthgrades), Vitals.com (Vitals), and Google.com (Google).METHODSThrough a directory of registered North American Spine Society (NASS) physicians, we identified spine surgeons practicing in Texas (107 neurosurgery trained, 192 orthopedic trained). Three physician rating websites (Healthgrades, Vitals, Google) were accessed to obtain surgeon demographics, training history, practice setting, number of ratings/reviews, and overall score (January 2, 2018–January 16, 2018). Using only the first 10 search results from Google.com, we then identified whether the surgeon had a website presence or an accessible social media account on Facebook, Twitter, and/or Instagram.RESULTSPhysicians with either a personal or institutional website had a higher overall rating on Healthgrades compared to those who did not have a website (p < 0.01). Nearly all spine surgeons had a personal or institutional website (90.3%), and at least 1 accessible social media account was recorded for 43.5% of the spine surgeons in our study cohort (39.5% Facebook, 10.4% Twitter, 2.7% Instagram). Social media presence was not significantly associated with overall ratings across all 3 sites, but it did significantly correlate with more comments on Healthgrades. In multivariable analysis, increasing surgeon age was significantly associated with a lower overall rating across all 3 review sites (p < 0.05). Neurosurgeons had higher overall ratings on Vitals (p = 0.04). Longer wait times were significantly associated with a lower overall rating on Healthgrades (p < 0.0001). Overall ratings from all 3 websites correlated significantly with each other, indicating agreement between physician ratings across different platforms.CONCLUSIONSLonger wait times, increasing physician age, and the absence of a website are indicative of lower online review scores for spine surgeons. Neurosurgery training correlated with a higher overall review score on Vitals. Having an accessible social media account does not appear to influence scores, but it is correlated with increased patient feedback on Healthgrades. Identification of ways to optimize patients’ perception of care are important in the future of performance-based medicine.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do physician demographics, training, social media usage, online presence, and wait times influence online physician review scores for spine surgeons?

Donnally

McCormick²,

Li³

et al. 2019

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study did not require IRB approval because it utilized publicly available federal databases and web-accessible data sources. The methodology to acquire the study population has been previously described by Prabhu et al [ 6 ]; the remaining methodology for this paper follows that presented by Obele et al [ 8 ] and is expanded below.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On Healthgrades and other third-party sites, patients can score physicians for a variety of factors as well as give an overall satisfaction score, collectively referred to as patient review satisfaction scores (PRSS) [ 3 ]. Previous studies have evaluated PRSS across various specialties, including radiology and interventional radiology [ 7 - 8 ]. Prior work investigating PRSS in the field of radiation oncology (RO), however, has been limited by small sample sizes and brief surveys [ 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do Patients Think About Their Radiation Oncologists? An Assessment of Online Patient Reviews on Healthgrades

Prabhu

Randhawa

Clump

et al. 2018

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionAn increasing number of patients search for their physicians online. Many hospital systems utilize Press-Ganey studies as internal tools to analyze patient satisfaction, but independent third-party websites have a large presence online. Patients’ trust in these third-party sites may occur despite a low number of reviews and a lack of validity of patients’ entries. Healthgrades.com has been shown as the most popular site to appear on Google searches for radiation oncologists (ROs) in the United States (US). The aim of this study was to analyze patient satisfaction scores and the factors that influence those scores for American ROs on Healthgrades.MethodsThe physician ratings website Healthgrades was manually queried to obtain reviews from all Medicare-participating ROs with reviews (n=2,679). Patient Review Satisfaction Scores (PRSS) were recorded in response to a variety of questions. All information in the survey was scored from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) for the following characteristics: likelihood to recommend (LTR), office environment, ease of scheduling, trust in the physician’s decision, staff friendliness, ability of the physician to listen and answer questions, ability of the physician to explain the condition, and whether the physician spent sufficient time with the patients. Associations amongst these factors were considered by computing Spearman correlation coefficients and utilizing Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests.ResultsThe ROs’ mean LTR score was 4.51±0.9 (median 5.0, 66% received the highest possible score of 5; 95% received a score>2). Patient reviews per RO ranged from 1 to 242 (4.50±0.9, median 2.0). LTR scores correlated very strongly with physician-related factors, ranging from r=0.85 (with appropriate time spent with patients) to r=0.89 (with level of trust in physician). LTR scores were not statistically significantly associated with gender, wait time, ROs’ years since graduation, academic status, or geographic region.ConclusionSatisfaction scores for ROs on a leading physician ratings website are very strong, and most patients leaving reviews are likely to recommend their own ROs to their friends and family. Understanding online ratings and identifying factors associated with positive ratings are important for both patients and ROs due to the recent growth in physician-rating third-party sites. ROs should have increased awareness regarding sites like Healthgrades and their online reputation.

show abstract

“…Social media has revolutionised communication, providing doctors with a platform to educate both patients and colleagues by promoting research, sharing procedural techniques and combating misinformation. Additionally, social media has shown to be a successful advertising medium, with patients increasingly likely to research a doctor using both social media and doctor‐rating websites prior to consultation 17,18 . Nevertheless, social media is not without its risks which include clinician and patient privacy, maintenance of professionalism and accuracy of widely shared information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social media in interventional radiology

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Social media provides opportunities for Interventional Radiologists to share research, communicate with colleagues, provide health information and advertise their clinical practice. This study aims to examine the online and social media presence of currently practicing Australian Interventional Radiologists. Methods Systematic Google searches were undertaken in May 2019 and updated in May 2020 to identify practicing Interventional Radiologists in Australia. Comprehensive searches of practice websites and social media platforms (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, ResearchGate, YouTube) were undertaken for each Interventional Radiologist. Results There were 265 Interventional Radiologists identified as currently practising in Australia, including 209 Interventional Radiologists (excluding Interventional Neuroradiologists), 49 Interventional Neuroradiologists and 7 that practise across both Interventional Radiology and Interventional Neuroradiology. 72% of Interventional Radiologists had at least one social media account, with LinkedIn the most widely used social media platform (60%). There was a significant negative correlation between the total number of social media accounts and years in practice (P = 0.04). Across the states, a higher population per IR was positively correlated with a higher average number of social media accounts per IR (P = 0.04). Interventional Neuroradiologists had a significantly higher average number of social media accounts compared to Interventional Radiologists (1.94 vs 1.29, P < 0.01). Conclusions Most Australian Interventional Radiologists have a readily identifiable social media presence. There is potential for further utilisation of social media for academic, educational and business purposes.

show abstract

What Patients Think About Their Interventional Radiologists: Assessment Using a Leading Physician Ratings Website

Cited by 17 publications

References 20 publications

How do physician demographics, training, social media usage, online presence, and wait times influence online physician review scores for spine surgeons?

How do physician demographics, training, social media usage, online presence, and wait times influence online physician review scores for spine surgeons?

What Do Patients Think About Their Radiation Oncologists? An Assessment of Online Patient Reviews on Healthgrades

Social media in interventional radiology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About