A cross-sectional study assessing the association between online ratings and structural and quality of care measures : results from two German physician rating websites

BACKGROUND: Even though physician rating websites (PRWs) have been gaining in importance in both practice and research, little evidence is available on the association of patients' online ratings with the quality of care of physicians. It thus remains unclear whether patients should rely on these ratings when selecting a physician. The objective of this study was to measure the association between online ratings and structural and quality of care measures for 65 physician practices from the German Integrated Health Care Network "Quality and Efficiency" (QuE). METHODS: Online reviews from two German PRWs were included which covered a three-year period (2011 to 2013) and included 1179 and 991 ratings, respectively. Information for 65 QuE practices was obtained for the year 2012 and included 21 measures related to structural information (N = 6), process quality (N = 10), intermediate outcomes (N = 2), patient satisfaction (N = 1), and costs (N = 2). The Spearman rank coefficient of correlation was applied to measure the association between ratings and practice-related information. RESULTS: Patient satisfaction results from offline surveys and the patients per doctor ratio in a practice were shown to be significantly associated with online ratings on both PRWs. For one PRW, additional significant associations could be shown between online ratings and cost-related measures for medication, preventative examinations, and one diabetes type 2-related intermediate outcome measure. There again, results from the second PRW showed significant associations with the age of the physicians and the number of patients per practice, four process-related quality measures for diabetes type 2 and asthma, and one cost-related measure for medication. CONCLUSIONS: Several significant associations were found which varied between the PRWs. Patients interested in the satisfaction of other patients with a physician might select a physician on the basis of online ratings. Even though our results indicate associations with some diabetes and asthma measures, but not with coronary heart disease measures, there is still insufficient evidence to draw strong conclusions. The limited number of practices in our study may have weakened our findings.

Eight Questions About Physician-Rating Websites: A Systematic Review

Background: Physician-rating websites are currently gaining in popularity because they increase transparency in the health care system. However, research on the characteristics and content of these portals remains limited. Objective: To identify and synthesize published evidence in peer-reviewed journals regarding frequently discussed issues about physician-rating websites. Methods: Peer-reviewed English and German language literature was searched in seven databases (Medline (via PubMed), the Cochrane Library, Business Source Complete, ABI/Inform Complete, PsycInfo, Scopus, and ISI web of knowledge) without any time constraints. Additionally, reference lists of included studies were screened to assure completeness. The following eight previously defined questions were addressed: 1) What percentage of physicians has been rated? 2) What is the average number of ratings on physician-rating websites? 3) Are there any differences among rated physicians related to socioeconomic status? 4) Are ratings more likely to be positive or negative? 5) What significance do patient narratives have? 6) How should physicians deal with physician-rating websites? 7) What major shortcomings do physician-rating websites have? 8) What recommendations can be made for further improvement of physician-rating websites? Results: Twenty-four articles published in peer-reviewed journals met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were published by US (n=13) and German (n=8) researchers; however, the focus differed considerably. The current usage of physician-rating websites is still low but is increasing. International data show that 1 out of 6 physicians has been rated, and approximately 90% of all ratings on physician-rating websites were positive. Although often a concern, we could not find any evidence of "doctor-bashing". Physicians should not ignore these websites, but rather, monitor the information available and use it for internal and ex-ternal purpose. Several shortcomings limit the significance of the results published on physician-rating websites; some recommendations to address these limitations are presented. Conclusions: Although the number of publications is still low, physician-rating websites are gaining more attention in research. But the current condition of physician-rating websites is lacking. This is the case both in the United States and in Germany. Further research is necessary to increase the quality of the websites, especially from the patients’ perspective.

Do health care providers use online patient ratings to improve the quality of care?

Background: Physician-rating websites have become a popular tool to create more transparency about the quality of health care providers. So far, it remains unknown whether online-based rating websites have the potential to contribute to a better standard of care. Objective: Our goal was to examine which health care providers use online rating websites and for what purposes, and whether health care providers use online patient ratings to improve patient care. Methods: We conducted an online-based cross-sectional study by surveying 2360 physicians and other health care providers (September 2015). In addition to descriptive statistics, we performed multilevel logistic regression models to ascertain the effects of providers' demographics as well as report card-related variables on the likelihood that providers implement measures to improve patient care. Results: Overall, more than half of the responding providers surveyed (54.66%, 1290/2360) used online ratings to derive measures to improve patient care (implemented measures: mean 3.06, SD 2.29). Ophthalmologists (68%, 40/59) and gynecologists (65.4%, 123/188) were most likely to implement any measures. The most widely implemented quality measures were related to communication with patients (28.77%, 679/2360), the appointment scheduling process (23.60%, 557/2360), and office workflow (21.23%, 501/2360). Scaled-survey results had a greater impact on deriving measures than narrative comments. Multilevel logistic regression models revealed medical specialty, the frequency of report card use, and the appraisal of the trustworthiness of scaled-survey ratings to be significantly associated predictors for implementing measures to improve patient care because of online ratings. Conclusions: Our results suggest that online ratings displayed on physician-rating websites have an impact on patient care. Despite the limitations of our study and unintended consequences of physician-rating websites, they still may have the potential to improve patient care.