Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Feb 24;14(1):e38.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.2003.

A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients' online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period

Guodong Gordon Gao  1 , Jeffrey S McCullough, Ritu Agarwal, Ashish K Jha
Affiliations

A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients' online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period

Guodong Gordon Gao et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Americans increasingly post and consult online physician rankings, yet we know little about this new phenomenon of public physician quality reporting. Physicians worry these rankings will become an outlet for disgruntled patients.

Objective: To describe trends in patients' online ratings over time, across specialties, to identify what physician characteristics influence online ratings, and to examine how the value of ratings reflects physician quality.

Methods: We used data from RateMDs.com, which included over 386,000 national ratings from 2005 to 2010 and provided insight into the evolution of patients' online ratings. We obtained physician demographic data from the US Department of Health and Human Services' Area Resource File. Finally, we matched patients' ratings with physician-level data from the Virginia Medical Board and examined the probability of being rated and resultant rating levels.

Results: We estimate that 1 in 6 practicing US physicians received an online review by January 2010. Obstetrician/gynecologists were twice as likely to be rated (P < .001) as other physicians. Online reviews were generally quite positive (mean 3.93 on a scale of 1 to 5). Based on the Virginia physician population, long-time graduates were more likely to be rated, while physicians who graduated in recent years received higher average ratings (P < .001). Patients gave slightly higher ratings to board-certified physicians (P = .04), those who graduated from highly rated medical schools (P = .002), and those without malpractice claims (P = .1).

Conclusion: Online physician rating is rapidly growing in popularity and becoming commonplace with no evidence that they are dominated by disgruntled patients. There exist statistically significant correlations between the value of ratings and physician experience, board certification, education, and malpractice claims, suggesting a positive correlation between online ratings and physician quality. However, the magnitude is small. The average number of ratings per physician is still low, and most rating variation reflects evaluations of punctuality and staff. Understanding whether they truly reflect better care and how they are used will be critically important.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cumulative number of ratings and rated physicians (based on data from RateMDs.com).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Percentage of US physicians rated in each specialty (based on data from RateMDs.com and the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Area Resource File). OB/GYN = obstetrician/gynecologists.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Distribution of quality ratings across physicians.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2011. Aug 17, [2012-02-20]. Public Reporting as a Quality Improvement Strategy: A Systematic Review of the Multiple Pathways Public Reporting May Influence Quality of Health Care http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/343/763/CQG-Public-....
    1. Jha AK, Li Z, Orav EJ, Epstein AM. Care in U.S. hospitals--the Hospital Quality Alliance program. N Engl J Med. 2005 Jul 21;353(3):265–74. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa051249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa051249353/3/265 - DOI - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jha AK, Orav EJ, Zheng J, Epstein AM. Patients' perception of hospital care in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 30;359(18):1921–31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa0804116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0804116359/18/1921 - DOI - DOI - PubMed
    1. Harris KM, Buntin MB. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 2008. May, [2012-02-20]. Choosing a Health Care Provider: The Role of Quality Information http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/051508.policysynthesis.qualityinfo.rp....
    1. Jha AK, Epstein AM. The predictive accuracy of the New York State coronary artery bypass surgery report-card system. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25(3):844–55. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.25.3.844.25/3/844 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources