Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 11/2019

01-11-2019 | Original research

A Comparison of Online Physician Ratings and Internal Patient-Submitted Ratings from a Large Healthcare System

Authors: Kanu Okike, MD, MPH, Natalie R. Uhr, Sherry Y. M. Shin, Kristal C. Xie, Chong Y. Kim, PhD, Tadashi T. Funahashi, MD, Michael H. Kanter, MD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 11/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Physician online ratings are ubiquitous and influential, but they also have their detractors. Given the lack of scientific survey methodology used in online ratings, some health systems have begun to publish their own internal patient-submitted ratings of physicians.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare online physician ratings with internal ratings from a large healthcare system.

Design

Retrospective cohort study comparing online ratings with internal ratings from a large healthcare system.

Setting

Kaiser Permanente, a large integrated healthcare delivery system.

Participants

Physicians in the Southern California region of Kaiser Permanente, including all specialties with ambulatory clinic visits.

Main Measures

The primary outcome measure was correlation between online physician ratings and internal ratings from the integrated healthcare delivery system.

Results

Of 5438 physicians who met inclusion and exclusion criteria, 4191 (77.1%) were rated both online and internally. The online ratings were based on a mean of 3.5 patient reviews, while the internal ratings were based on a mean of 119 survey returns. The overall correlation between the online and internal ratings was weak (Spearman’s rho .23), but increased with the number of reviews used to formulate each online rating.

Conclusions

Physician online ratings did not correlate well with internal ratings from a large integrated healthcare delivery system, although the correlation increased with the number of reviews used to formulate each online rating. Given that many consumers are not aware of the statistical issues associated with small sample sizes, we would recommend that online rating websites refrain from displaying a physician’s rating until the sample size is sufficiently large (for example, at least 15 patient reviews). However, hospitals and health systems may be able to provide better information for patients by publishing the internal ratings of their physicians.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Atkinson S. Current status of online rating of Australian doctors. Aust J Prim Health. 2014;20(3):222–3.CrossRef Atkinson S. Current status of online rating of Australian doctors. Aust J Prim Health. 2014;20(3):222–3.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Bakhsh W, Mesfin A. Online ratings of orthopedic surgeons: analysis of 2185 reviews. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2014;43(8):359–63.PubMed Bakhsh W, Mesfin A. Online ratings of orthopedic surgeons: analysis of 2185 reviews. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2014;43(8):359–63.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Black EW, Thompson LA, Saliba H, Dawson K, Black NM. An analysis of healthcare providers’ online ratings. Inform Prim Care. 2009;17(4):249–53.PubMed Black EW, Thompson LA, Saliba H, Dawson K, Black NM. An analysis of healthcare providers’ online ratings. Inform Prim Care. 2009;17(4):249–53.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Detz A, Lopez A, Sarkar U. Long-term doctor-patient relationships: patient perspective from online reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(7):e131.CrossRef Detz A, Lopez A, Sarkar U. Long-term doctor-patient relationships: patient perspective from online reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(7):e131.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Ellimoottil C, Hart A, Greco K, Quek ML, Farooq A. Online reviews of 500 urologists. J Urol. 2013;189(6):2269–73.CrossRef Ellimoottil C, Hart A, Greco K, Quek ML, Farooq A. Online reviews of 500 urologists. J Urol. 2013;189(6):2269–73.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Emmert M, Meier F. An analysis of online evaluations on a physician rating website: evidence from a German public reporting instrument. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e157.CrossRef Emmert M, Meier F. An analysis of online evaluations on a physician rating website: evidence from a German public reporting instrument. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e157.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Emmert M, Meier F, Heider AK, Durr C, Sander U. What do patients say about their physicians? an analysis of 3000 narrative comments posted on a German physician rating website. Health Policy. 2014;118(1):66–73.CrossRef Emmert M, Meier F, Heider AK, Durr C, Sander U. What do patients say about their physicians? an analysis of 3000 narrative comments posted on a German physician rating website. Health Policy. 2014;118(1):66–73.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Gao GG, McCullough JS, Agarwal R, Jha AK. A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients’ online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(1):e38.CrossRef Gao GG, McCullough JS, Agarwal R, Jha AK. A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients’ online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(1):e38.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kadry B, Chu LF, Kadry B, Gammas D, Macario A. Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e95.CrossRef Kadry B, Chu LF, Kadry B, Gammas D, Macario A. Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e95.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Lopez A, Detz A, Ratanawongsa N, Sarkar U. What patients say about their doctors online: a qualitative content analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(6):685–92.CrossRef Lopez A, Detz A, Ratanawongsa N, Sarkar U. What patients say about their doctors online: a qualitative content analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(6):685–92.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Merrell JG, Levy BH, 3rd, Johnson DA. Patient assessments and online ratings of quality care: a “wake-up call” for providers. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(11):1676–85.CrossRef Merrell JG, Levy BH, 3rd, Johnson DA. Patient assessments and online ratings of quality care: a “wake-up call” for providers. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(11):1676–85.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Sabin JE. Physician-rating websites. Virtual Mentor. 2013;15(11):932–6.PubMed Sabin JE. Physician-rating websites. Virtual Mentor. 2013;15(11):932–6.PubMed
13.
go back to reference Segal J, Sacopulos M, Sheets V, Thurston I, Brooks K, Puccia R. Online doctor reviews: do they track surgeon volume, a proxy for quality of care? J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(2):e50.CrossRef Segal J, Sacopulos M, Sheets V, Thurston I, Brooks K, Puccia R. Online doctor reviews: do they track surgeon volume, a proxy for quality of care? J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(2):e50.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Wallace BC, Paul MJ, Sarkar U, Trikalinos TA, Dredze M. A large-scale quantitative analysis of latent factors and sentiment in online doctor reviews. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(6):1098–103.CrossRef Wallace BC, Paul MJ, Sarkar U, Trikalinos TA, Dredze M. A large-scale quantitative analysis of latent factors and sentiment in online doctor reviews. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(6):1098–103.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Hanauer DA, Zheng K, Singer DC, Gebremariam A, Davis MM. Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites. JAMA. 2014;311(7):734–5.CrossRef Hanauer DA, Zheng K, Singer DC, Gebremariam A, Davis MM. Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites. JAMA. 2014;311(7):734–5.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Strech D. Ethical principles for physician rating sites. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e113.CrossRef Strech D. Ethical principles for physician rating sites. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e113.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Segal J, Sacopulos MJ, Rivera DJ. Legal remedies for online defamation of physicians. J Leg Med. 2009;30(3):349–88.CrossRef Segal J, Sacopulos MJ, Rivera DJ. Legal remedies for online defamation of physicians. J Leg Med. 2009;30(3):349–88.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Emmert M, Sander U, Pisch F. Eight questions about physician-rating websites: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(2):e24.CrossRef Emmert M, Sander U, Pisch F. Eight questions about physician-rating websites: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(2):e24.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Daskivich TJ, Houman J, Fuller G, Black JT, Kim HL, Spiegel B. Online physician ratings fail to predict actual performance on measures of quality, value, and peer review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(4):401–407.CrossRef Daskivich TJ, Houman J, Fuller G, Black JT, Kim HL, Spiegel B. Online physician ratings fail to predict actual performance on measures of quality, value, and peer review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(4):401–407.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Okike K, Peter-Bibb TK, Xie KC, Okike ON. Association Between Physician Online Rating and Quality of Care. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(12):e324.CrossRef Okike K, Peter-Bibb TK, Xie KC, Okike ON. Association Between Physician Online Rating and Quality of Care. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(12):e324.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Randhawa S, Viqar A, Strother J, et al. How Do Patients Rate Their Radiation Oncologists in the Modern Era: An Analysis of Vitals.com. Cureus. 2018;10(9):e3312.PubMedPubMedCentral Randhawa S, Viqar A, Strother J, et al. How Do Patients Rate Their Radiation Oncologists in the Modern Era: An Analysis of Vitals.com. Cureus. 2018;10(9):e3312.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Chen J, Presson A, Zhang C, Ray D, Finlayson S, Glasgow R. Online physician review websites poorly correlate to a validated metric of patient satisfaction. J Surg Res. 2018;227:1–6.CrossRef Chen J, Presson A, Zhang C, Ray D, Finlayson S, Glasgow R. Online physician review websites poorly correlate to a validated metric of patient satisfaction. J Surg Res. 2018;227:1–6.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Ricciardi BF, Waddell BS, Nodzo SR, et al. Provider-Initiated Patient Satisfaction Reporting Yields Improved Physician Ratings Relative to Online Rating Websites. Orthopedics. 2017;40(5):304–310.CrossRef Ricciardi BF, Waddell BS, Nodzo SR, et al. Provider-Initiated Patient Satisfaction Reporting Yields Improved Physician Ratings Relative to Online Rating Websites. Orthopedics. 2017;40(5):304–310.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Widmer RJ, Maurer MJ, Nayar VR, et al. Online Physician Reviews Do Not Reflect Patient Satisfaction Survey Responses. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018;93(4):453–457.CrossRef Widmer RJ, Maurer MJ, Nayar VR, et al. Online Physician Reviews Do Not Reflect Patient Satisfaction Survey Responses. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018;93(4):453–457.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Ryan T, Specht J, Smith S, DelGaudio JM. Does the Press Ganey Survey Correlate to Online Health Grades for a Major Academic Otolaryngology Department? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;155(3):411–5.CrossRef Ryan T, Specht J, Smith S, DelGaudio JM. Does the Press Ganey Survey Correlate to Online Health Grades for a Major Academic Otolaryngology Department? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;155(3):411–5.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference McKinstry B, Yang SY. Do patients care about the age of their general practitioner? A questionnaire survey in five practices. Br J Gen Pract. 1994;44(385):349–51.PubMedPubMedCentral McKinstry B, Yang SY. Do patients care about the age of their general practitioner? A questionnaire survey in five practices. Br J Gen Pract. 1994;44(385):349–51.PubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Tsugawa Y, Jena AB, Orav EJ, et al. Age and sex of surgeons and mortality of older surgical patients: observational study. BMJ. 2018;361:k1343.CrossRef Tsugawa Y, Jena AB, Orav EJ, et al. Age and sex of surgeons and mortality of older surgical patients: observational study. BMJ. 2018;361:k1343.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Tsugawa Y, Newhouse JP, Zaslavsky AM, Blumenthal DM, Jena AB. Physician age and outcomes in elderly patients in hospital in the US: observational study. BMJ. 2017;357:j1797.CrossRef Tsugawa Y, Newhouse JP, Zaslavsky AM, Blumenthal DM, Jena AB. Physician age and outcomes in elderly patients in hospital in the US: observational study. BMJ. 2017;357:j1797.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Lee V. Transparency and Trust - Online Patient Reviews of Physicians. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(3):197–199.CrossRef Lee V. Transparency and Trust - Online Patient Reviews of Physicians. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(3):197–199.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A Comparison of Online Physician Ratings and Internal Patient-Submitted Ratings from a Large Healthcare System
Authors
Kanu Okike, MD, MPH
Natalie R. Uhr
Sherry Y. M. Shin
Kristal C. Xie
Chong Y. Kim, PhD
Tadashi T. Funahashi, MD
Michael H. Kanter, MD
Publication date
01-11-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 11/2019
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05265-3

Other articles of this Issue 11/2019

Journal of General Internal Medicine 11/2019 Go to the issue
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.