28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Physician and Patient Views on Public Physician Rating Websites: A Cross-Sectional Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Numerical ratings and narrative comments about physicians are increasingly available online. These physician rating websites include independent websites reporting crowd-sourced data from online users and health systems reporting data from their internal patient experience surveys.

          Objective

          To assess patient and physician views on physician rating websites.

          Design

          Cross-sectional physician (electronic) and patient (paper) surveys conducted in August 2015.

          Participants

          Eight hundred twenty-eight physicians (response rate 43%) affiliated with one of four hospitals in a large accountable care organization in eastern Massachusetts; 494 adult patients (response rate 34%) who received care in this system in May 2015.

          Main Measures

          Use and perceptions of physician rating websites.

          Key Results

          Fifty-three percent of physicians and 39% of patients reported visiting a physician rating website at least once. Physicians reported higher levels of agreement with the accuracy of numerical data (53%) and narrative comments (62%) from health system patient experience surveys compared to numerical data (36%) and narrative comments (36%) on independent websites. Patients reported higher levels of agreement with trusting the accuracy of data obtained from independent websites (57%) compared to health system patient experience surveys (45%). Twenty-one percent of physicians and 51% of patients supported posting narrative comments online for all consumers. The majority (78%) of physicians believed that posting narrative comments online would increase physician job stress; smaller proportions perceived a negative effect on the physician–patient relationship (46%), health care overuse (34%), and patient-reported experiences of care (33%). Over one-fourth of patients (29%) believed that posting narrative comments would cause them to be less open.

          Conclusions

          Physicians and patients have different views on whether independent or health system physician rating websites are the more reliable source of information. Their views on whether such data should be shared on public websites are also discordant.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Cognitive Interviewing

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patient satisfaction and quality of surgical care in US hospitals.

            The relationship between patient satisfaction and surgical quality is unclear for US hospitals. Using national data, we examined if hospitals with high patient satisfaction have lower levels of performance on accepted measures of the quality and efficiency of surgical care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Measuring hospital care from the patients' perspective: an overview of the CAHPS Hospital Survey development process.

              To describe the developmental process for the CAHPS Hospital Survey. A pilot was conducted in three states with 19,720 hospital discharges. A rigorous, multi-step process was used to develop the CAHPS Hospital Survey. It included a public call for measures, multiple Federal Register notices soliciting public input, a review of the relevant literature, meetings with hospitals, consumers and survey vendors, cognitive interviews with consumer, a large-scale pilot test in three states and consumer testing and numerous small-scale field tests. The current version of the CAHPS Hospital Survey has survey items in seven domains, two overall ratings of the hospital and five items used for adjusting for the mix of patients across hospitals and for analytical purposes. The CAHPS Hospital Survey is a core set of questions that can be administered as a stand-alone questionnaire or combined with a broader set of hospital specific items.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                alison_holliday@hms.harvard.edu
                Journal
                J Gen Intern Med
                J Gen Intern Med
                Journal of General Internal Medicine
                Springer US (New York )
                0884-8734
                1525-1497
                1 February 2017
                June 2017
                : 32
                : 6
                : 626-631
                Affiliations
                [1 ] ISNI 000000041936754X, GRID grid.38142.3c, Harvard Medical School, ; Boston, MA USA
                [2 ] ISNI 0000 0004 0378 8294, GRID grid.62560.37, Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, ; Boston, MA USA
                [3 ] ISNI 0000 0004 0378 0997, GRID grid.452687.a, Partners HealthCare System, ; Prudential Center, 800 Boylston Street, 11th Floor, Boston, MA USA
                [4 ] ISNI 0000 0004 0386 9924, GRID grid.32224.35, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, ; Boston, MA USA
                [5 ] ISNI 000000041936754X, GRID grid.38142.3c, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, ; Boston, MA USA
                Article
                PMC5442010 PMC5442010 5442010 3982
                10.1007/s11606-017-3982-5
                5442010
                28150098
                a033b4e2-22ec-41e2-a38d-e4bb3e8fd6b1
                © Society of General Internal Medicine 2017
                History
                : 27 June 2016
                : 2 November 2016
                : 30 December 2016
                Categories
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                © Society of General Internal Medicine 2017

                doctor–patient relationships,consumer health,patient engagement,patient satisfaction,quality improvement

                Comments

                Comment on this article