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
. 2019 Mar 27;21(3):e12007.
doi: 10.2196/12007.

Reporting of Patient Experience Data on Health Systems' Websites and Commercial Physician-Rating Websites: Mixed-Methods Analysis

Tara Lagu #  1 , Caroline M Norton #  2 , Lindsey M Russo #  3 , Aruna Priya #  1   3 , Sarah L Goff #  1   3 , Peter K Lindenauer #  1
Affiliations

Reporting of Patient Experience Data on Health Systems' Websites and Commercial Physician-Rating Websites: Mixed-Methods Analysis

Tara Lagu et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Some hospitals' and health systems' websites report physician-level ratings and comments drawn from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys.

Objective: The aim was to examine the prevalence and content of health system websites reporting these data and compare narratives from these sites to narratives from commercial physician-rating sites.

Methods: We identified health system websites active between June 1 and 30, 2016, that posted clinician reviews. For 140 randomly selected clinicians, we extracted the number of star ratings and narrative comments. We conducted a qualitative analysis of a random sample of these physicians' narrative reviews and compared these to a random sample of reviews from commercial physician-rating websites. We described composite quantitative scores for sampled physicians and compared the frequency of themes between reviews drawn from health systems' and commercial physician-rating websites.

Results: We identified 42 health systems that published composite star ratings (42/42, 100%) or narratives (33/42, 79%). Most (27/42, 64%) stated that they excluded narratives deemed offensive. Of 140 clinicians, the majority had composite scores listed (star ratings: 122/140, 87.1%; narrative reviews: 114/140, 81.4%), with medians of 110 star ratings (IQR 42-175) and 25.5 (IQR 13-48) narratives. The rating median was 4.8 (IQR 4.7-4.9) out of five stars, and no clinician had a score less than 4.2. Compared to commercial physician-rating websites, we found significantly fewer negative comments on health system websites (35.5%, 76/214 vs 12.8%, 72/561, respectively; P<.001).

Conclusions: The lack of variation in star ratings on health system sites may make it difficult to differentiate between clinicians. Most health systems report that they remove offensive comments, and we notably found fewer negative comments on health system websites compared to commercial physician-rating sites.

Keywords: physician reviews; public reporting; social networking.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: Drs Lagu and Lindenauer have served as consultants for the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, under contract to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, for which they have provided clinical and methodological expertise and input on the development, reevaluation, and implementation of hospital outcome and efficiency measures. The views expressed in this manuscript do not necessarily reflect those of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

References

    1. Hanauer DA, Zheng K, Singer DC, Gebremariam A, Davis MM. Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites. JAMA. 2014 Feb 19;311(7):734–735. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.283194.1829975 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Emmert M, Meier F, Pisch F, Sander U. Physician choice making and characteristics associated with using physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e187. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2702. http://www.jmir.org/2013/8/e187/ v15i8e187 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lagu T, Metayer K, Moran M, Ortiz L, Priya A, Goff SL, Lindenauer PK. Website characteristics and physician reviews on commercial physician-rating websites. JAMA. 2017 Feb 21;317(7):766. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.18553. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lagu T, Hannon NS, Rothberg MB, Lindenauer PK. Patients' evaluations of health care providers in the era of social networking: an analysis of physician-rating websites. J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Sep;25(9):942–946. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1383-0. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/20464523 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hays RD, Shaul JA, Williams VS, Lubalin JS, Harris-Kojetin LD, Sweeny SF, Cleary PD. Psychometric properties of the CAHPS 1.0 survey measures. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study. Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS22–MS31. - PubMed

Publication types