Do Health Care Providers Use Online Patient Ratings to Improve the Quality of Care? Results From an Online-Based Cross-Sectional Study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

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.

Related collections

Most cited references 24

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

All stories are not alike: a purpose-, content-, and valence-based taxonomy of patient narratives in decision aids.

M. Fisher, V Shaffer (2012)

The use of patient stories in decision aids is a highly controversial practice. However, the resulting debates and research have yielded little consensus about the impact of patient stories due to vague operational definitions of narratives. In this article, we argue that narratives are not homogeneous in either content or effect and hence should not be considered a single construct in research. The purpose of this article is to provide a taxonomy that guides both the development of decision aids and future research on this topic. We define three dimensions of narratives that are likely to moderate their impact on decision making: 1) the purpose of the narrative, 2) the content of the message, and 3) the evaluative valence, or overall tone, of the message. In addition, we describe predicted effects of different types of narratives on decision making and discuss their potential interactions. Our taxonomy provides a framework that will allow for the precise documentation of different narrative types, the use of appropriate outcome measures, and a systematic evaluation of narratives in all types of decision aids. Failures to recognize the complex structure of narratives will result both in research that does little to inform our understanding of the impact of patient stories and in the use of narratives in patient education materials that have unintended consequences on both decision processes and behavior.

0 comments Cited 53 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Connections between quality measurement and improvement.

D Berwick, Molly Coye, Adelbert B James (2002)

Measurement is necessary but not sufficient for quality improvement. Because the purpose of the national quality measurement and reporting system (NQMRS) is to improve quality, a discussion of the link between measurement and improvement is critical for ensuring an appropriate system design. To classify approaches to the use of measurement in improvement into two different--although linked and potentially synergistic--agendas, or "pathways." To discuss the barriers encountered in each of these pathways and identify steps needed to motivate improvement in both pathways. Descriptive, conceptual discussion. The barriers to the use of information to motivate change include, in Pathway I (selection), the lack of skill, knowledge, and motivation on the part of those who could drive change by using data to choose from among competing providers, and, in Pathway II (change in care delivery), the deficiencies in organizational and professional capacity in health care to lead change and improvement itself. Neither the dynamics of selection nor the dynamics of improvement work reliably today. The barriers are not just in the lack of uniform, simple, and reliable measurements, they also include a lack of capacity among the organizations and individuals acting on both pathways.

0 comments Cited 47 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Influence of cardiac-surgery performance reports on referral practices and access to care. A survey of cardiovascular specialists.

Seth Epstein, M. Schneider (1996)

Reports on the comparative performance of physicians are becoming increasingly common. Little is known, however, about the credibility of these reports with target audiences or their influence on the delivery of medical services. Since 1992, Pennsylvania has published the Consumer Guide to Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery, which lists annual risk-adjusted mortality rates for all hospitals and surgeons providing such surgery in the state. In 1995, we surveyed a randomly selected sample of 50 percent of Pennsylvania cardiologists and cardiac surgeons to find out whether they were aware of the guide and, if so, to determine their views on its usefulness, limitations, and influence on providers. Eighty-two percent of the cardiologists and all the cardiac surgeons were aware of the guide. Only 10 percent of these respondents reported that its mortality rates were "very important" in assessing the performance of a cardiothoracic surgeon. Less than 10 percent reported discussing the guide with more than 10 percent of their patients who were candidates for a coronary-artery bypass graft (CABG). Eighty-seven percent of the cardiologists reported that the guide had a minimal influence or none on their referral recommendations. For both groups, the most important limitations of the guide were the absence of indicators of quality other than mortality (cited by 78 percent), inadequate risk adjustment (79 percent), and the unreliability of data provided by hospitals and surgeons (53 percent). Fifty-nine percent of the cardiologists reported increased difficulty in finding surgeons willing to perform CABG surgery in severely ill patients who required it, and 63 percent of the cardiac surgeons reported that they were less willing to operate on such patients. The Consumer Guide to Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery has limited credibility among cardiovascular specialists. It has little influence on referral recommendations and may introduce a barrier to care for severely ill patients. If publicly released performance reports are intended to guide the choice of providers without impeding access to medical care, a collaborative process involving physicians may enhance the credibility and usefulness of the reports.

0 comments Cited 44 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Martin Emmert:

Health Services Management, Institute of ManagementSchool of Business and EconomicsFriedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-NurembergLange Gasse 20Nuremberg, 90403Germany49 9115302 ext 25349 9115302285Martin.Emmert@fau.de

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0154-6641

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Med Internet Res

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J. Med. Internet Res

Journal ID (publisher-id): JMIR

Title: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Publisher: JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )

ISSN (Print): 1439-4456

ISSN (Electronic): 1438-8871

Publication date Collection: September 2016

Publication date (Electronic): 19 September 2016

Volume: 18

Issue: 9

Electronic Location Identifier: e254

Affiliations

[1] ¹Health Services Management, Institute of Management School of Business and Economics Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg NurembergGermany

[2] ²Health Care Management, Institute of Management School of Business and Economics Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg NurembergGermany

[3] ³Media, Information and Design Department of Information and Communication University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Hannover HannoverGermany

Author notes

Corresponding Author: Martin Emmert Martin.Emmert@ 123456fau.de

Author information

Martin Emmert http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0154-6641

Nina Meszmer http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9963-9346

Uwe Sander http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9521-5423

Article

Publisher ID: v18i9e254

DOI: 10.2196/jmir.5889

PMC ID: 5048057

PubMed ID: 27644135

SO-VID: 9ea60a61-32e1-4349-b7d1-ce28371ea4e0

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

History

Date received : 19 April 2016

Date revision requested : 25 July 2016

Date revision received : 27 July 2016

Date accepted : 21 August 2016

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 39

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 212

See all reference authors

Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
- celebrating 25 years of open access