Cargando…

Analysis of Negative Reviews of Orthopedic Oncology Surgeons: An Investigation of Reviews from Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google

BACKGROUND: Physician review websites (PRWs) are increasing in usage and popularity. Our purpose is to characterize one-star reviews of orthopedic oncology surgeons to understand factors in healthcare that contribute to patient satisfaction. METHODS: Orthopedic oncology surgeons were randomly select...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Qubain, Leeann, Richman, Evan H., Eaton, Vincent, Brinkman, Joseph C., Goulding, Krista M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9759390/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36536691
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/4351427
_version_ 1784852220322250752
author Qubain, Leeann
Richman, Evan H.
Eaton, Vincent
Brinkman, Joseph C.
Goulding, Krista M.
author_facet Qubain, Leeann
Richman, Evan H.
Eaton, Vincent
Brinkman, Joseph C.
Goulding, Krista M.
author_sort Qubain, Leeann
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Physician review websites (PRWs) are increasing in usage and popularity. Our purpose is to characterize one-star reviews of orthopedic oncology surgeons to understand factors in healthcare that contribute to patient satisfaction. METHODS: Orthopedic oncology surgeons were randomly selected from the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. A search for one-star reviews was performed on Google Reviews, Healthgrades, and Vitals.com. Reviews were classified as clinical or nonclinical. Statistical analyses were performed regarding the frequency of reviews and complaints for each category. RESULTS: Of the 7,733 reviews discovered, 908 (11.7%) were identified as one-star reviews. Of 907 usable complaints, 362 (40.8%) were clinical and 545 (59.2%) were nonclinical. The most common nonclinical complaints included bedside manner (65%) and limited time with providers (19%). The most common clinical complaints included complications (26%) and disagreements with the treatment plan (26%). There were 120 surgical and 221 nonsurgical reviews. Surgical patients had a higher rate of clinical complaints. Nonsurgical patients had a higher rate of total complaints. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study examining PRWs regarding orthopedic oncology surgeons. Most one-star reviews were due to nonclinical complaints from nonsurgical patients. The most common factors are bedside manner, limited time with provider, phone communication issues, and rude/unprofessional conduct.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9759390
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97593902022-12-18 Analysis of Negative Reviews of Orthopedic Oncology Surgeons: An Investigation of Reviews from Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google Qubain, Leeann Richman, Evan H. Eaton, Vincent Brinkman, Joseph C. Goulding, Krista M. Sarcoma Research Article BACKGROUND: Physician review websites (PRWs) are increasing in usage and popularity. Our purpose is to characterize one-star reviews of orthopedic oncology surgeons to understand factors in healthcare that contribute to patient satisfaction. METHODS: Orthopedic oncology surgeons were randomly selected from the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. A search for one-star reviews was performed on Google Reviews, Healthgrades, and Vitals.com. Reviews were classified as clinical or nonclinical. Statistical analyses were performed regarding the frequency of reviews and complaints for each category. RESULTS: Of the 7,733 reviews discovered, 908 (11.7%) were identified as one-star reviews. Of 907 usable complaints, 362 (40.8%) were clinical and 545 (59.2%) were nonclinical. The most common nonclinical complaints included bedside manner (65%) and limited time with providers (19%). The most common clinical complaints included complications (26%) and disagreements with the treatment plan (26%). There were 120 surgical and 221 nonsurgical reviews. Surgical patients had a higher rate of clinical complaints. Nonsurgical patients had a higher rate of total complaints. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study examining PRWs regarding orthopedic oncology surgeons. Most one-star reviews were due to nonclinical complaints from nonsurgical patients. The most common factors are bedside manner, limited time with provider, phone communication issues, and rude/unprofessional conduct. Hindawi 2022-12-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9759390/ /pubmed/36536691 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/4351427 Text en Copyright © 2022 Leeann Qubain et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Qubain, Leeann
Richman, Evan H.
Eaton, Vincent
Brinkman, Joseph C.
Goulding, Krista M.
Analysis of Negative Reviews of Orthopedic Oncology Surgeons: An Investigation of Reviews from Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google
title Analysis of Negative Reviews of Orthopedic Oncology Surgeons: An Investigation of Reviews from Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google
title_full Analysis of Negative Reviews of Orthopedic Oncology Surgeons: An Investigation of Reviews from Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google
title_fullStr Analysis of Negative Reviews of Orthopedic Oncology Surgeons: An Investigation of Reviews from Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google
title_full_unstemmed Analysis of Negative Reviews of Orthopedic Oncology Surgeons: An Investigation of Reviews from Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google
title_short Analysis of Negative Reviews of Orthopedic Oncology Surgeons: An Investigation of Reviews from Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google
title_sort analysis of negative reviews of orthopedic oncology surgeons: an investigation of reviews from healthgrades, vitals, and google
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9759390/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36536691
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/4351427
work_keys_str_mv AT qubainleeann analysisofnegativereviewsoforthopediconcologysurgeonsaninvestigationofreviewsfromhealthgradesvitalsandgoogle
AT richmanevanh analysisofnegativereviewsoforthopediconcologysurgeonsaninvestigationofreviewsfromhealthgradesvitalsandgoogle
AT eatonvincent analysisofnegativereviewsoforthopediconcologysurgeonsaninvestigationofreviewsfromhealthgradesvitalsandgoogle
AT brinkmanjosephc analysisofnegativereviewsoforthopediconcologysurgeonsaninvestigationofreviewsfromhealthgradesvitalsandgoogle
AT gouldingkristam analysisofnegativereviewsoforthopediconcologysurgeonsaninvestigationofreviewsfromhealthgradesvitalsandgoogle