• J Gen Intern Med · Nov 2019

    Comparative Study

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

    • Kanu Okike, Natalie R Uhr, Sherry Y M Shin, Kristal C Xie, Chong Y Kim, Tadashi T Funahashi, and Michael H Kanter.
    • Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Moanalua Medical Center, Moanalua Road, Honolulu, HI, USA. okike@post.harvard.edu.
    • J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 1; 34 (11): 2575-2579.

    BackgroundPhysician 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.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare online physician ratings with internal ratings from a large healthcare system.DesignRetrospective cohort study comparing online ratings with internal ratings from a large healthcare system.SettingKaiser Permanente, a large integrated healthcare delivery system.ParticipantsPhysicians in the Southern California region of Kaiser Permanente, including all specialties with ambulatory clinic visits.Main MeasuresThe primary outcome measure was correlation between online physician ratings and internal ratings from the integrated healthcare delivery system.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsPhysician 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.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…