19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Patients’ Ratings of Family Physician Practices on the Internet: Usage and Associations With Conventional Measures of Quality in the English National Health Service

      research-article
      , BM, BCh 1 , , , PhD 1 , , MB, ChB 2 , , PhD 1 , , MD 2 , , MD 1 , , PhD 1
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      Journal of Medical Internet Research
      Gunther Eysenbach
      Patient Experience, Primary Care, Internet, Quality

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Patients are increasingly rating their family physicians on the Internet in the same way as they might rate a hotel on TripAdvisor or a seller on eBay, despite physicians’ concerns about this process.

          Objective

          This study aims to examine the usage of NHS Choices, a government website that encourages patients to rate the quality of family practices in England, and associations between web-based patient ratings and conventional measures of patient experience and clinical quality in primary care.

          Methods

          We obtained all (16,952) ratings of family practices posted on NHS Choices between October 2009 and December 2010. We examined associations between patient ratings and family practice and population characteristics. Associations between ratings and survey measures of patient experience and clinical outcomes were examined.

          Results

          61% of the 8089 family practices in England were rated, and 69% of ratings would recommend their family practice. Practices serving younger, less deprived, and more densely populated areas were more likely to be rated. There were moderate associations with survey measures of patient experience (Spearman ρ 0.37−0.48, P<.001 for all 5 variables), but only weak associations with measures of clinical process and outcome (Spearman ρ less than ±0.18, P<.001 for 6 of 7 variables).

          Conclusion

          The frequency of patients rating their family physicians on the Internet is variable in England, but the ratings are generally positive and are moderately associated with other measures of patient experience and weakly associated with clinical quality. Although potentially flawed, patient ratings on the Internet may provide an opportunity for organizational learning and, as it becomes more common, another lens to look at the quality of primary care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom.

          In 2004, after a series of national initiatives associated with marked improvements in the quality of care, the National Health Service of the United Kingdom introduced a pay-for-performance contract for family practitioners. This contract increases existing income according to performance with respect to 146 quality indicators covering clinical care for 10 chronic diseases, organization of care, and patient experience. We analyzed data extracted automatically from clinical computing systems for 8105 family practices in England in the first year of the pay-for-performance program (April 2004 through March 2005), data from the U.K. Census, and data on characteristics of individual family practices. We examined the proportion of patients deemed eligible for a clinical quality indicator for whom the indicator was met (reported achievement) and the proportion of the total number of patients with a medical condition for whom a quality indicator was met (population achievement), and we used multiple regression analysis to determine the extent to which practices achieved high scores by classifying patients as ineligible for quality indicators (exception reporting). The median reported achievement in the first year of the new contract was 83.4 percent (interquartile range, 78.2 to 87.0 percent). Sociodemographic characteristics of the patients (age and socioeconomic features) and practices (size of practice, number of patients per practitioner, age of practitioner, and whether the practitioner was medically educated in the United Kingdom) had moderate but significant effects on performance. Exception reporting by practices was not extensive (median rate, 6 percent), but it was the strongest predictor of achievement: a 1 percent increase in the rate of exception reporting was associated with a 0.31 percent increase in reported achievement. Exception reporting was high in a small number of practices: 1 percent of practices excluded more than 15 percent of patients. English family practices attained high levels of achievement in the first year of the new pay-for-performance contract. A small number of practices appear to have achieved high scores by excluding large numbers of patients by exception reporting. More research is needed to determine whether these practices are excluding patients for sound clinical reasons or in order to increase income. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback and physicians' clinical performance: BEME Guide No. 7.

            There is a basis for the assumption that feedback can be used to enhance physicians' performance. Nevertheless, the findings of empirical studies of the impact of feedback on clinical performance have been equivocal. To summarize evidence related to the impact of assessment and feedback on physicians' clinical performance. The authors searched the literature from 1966 to 2003 using MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, the Science Citation Index and eight other electronic databases. A total of 3702 citations were identified. Empirical studies were selected involving the baseline measurement of physicians' performance and follow-up measurement after they received summaries of their performance. Data were extracted on research design, sample, dependent and independent variables using a written protocol. A group of 220 studies involving primary data collection was identified. However, only 41 met all selection criteria and evaluated the independent effect of feedback on physician performance. Of these, 32 (74%) demonstrated a positive impact. Feedback was more likely to be effective when provided by an authoritative source over an extended period of time. Another subset of 132 studies examined the effect of feedback combined with other interventions such as educational programmes, practice guidelines and reminders. Of these, 106 studies (77%) demonstrated a positive impact. Two additional subsets of 29 feedback studies involving resident physicians in training and 18 studies examining proxy measures of physician performance across clinical sites or groups of patients were reviewed. The majority of these two subsets also reported that feedback had positive effects on performance. Feedback can change physicians' clinical performance when provided systematically over multiple years by an authoritative, credible source. The effects of formal assessment and feedback on physician performance are influenced by the source and duration of feedback. Other factors, such as physicians' active involvement in the process, the amount of information reported, the timing and amount of feedback, and other concurrent interventions, such as education, guidelines, reminder systems and incentives, also appear to be important. However, the independent contributions of these interventions have not been well documented in controlled studies. It is recommended that the designers of future theoretical as well as practical studies of feedback separate the effects of feedback from other concurrent interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Patient sociodemographic characteristics as predictors of satisfaction with medical care: a meta-analysis.

              A meta-analysis was performed to examine the relation of patients' sociodemographic characteristics to their satisfaction with medical care. The sociodemographic characteristics were age, ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status (three indices), marital status, and family size. Greater satisfaction was significantly associated with greater age and less education, and marginally significantly associated with being married and having higher social status (scored as a composite variable emphasizing occupational status). The average magnitudes of relations were very small, with age being the strongest correlate of satisfaction (mean r = 0.13). No overall relationship was found for ethnicity, sex, income, or family size. For all sociodemographic variables, the distribution of correlations was significantly heterogeneous, and statistical contrasts revealed the operation of several moderating variables. The meaning of the overall results and their relation to earlier reviews is discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J. Med. Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                Gunther Eysenbach (JMIR Publications Inc., Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                Sep-Oct 2012
                17 October 2012
                : 14
                : 5
                : e146
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Primary Care and Public Health Imperial College London LondonUnited Kingdom
                [2] 2Centre for Health Policy Institute of Global Health Innovation Imperial College London LondonUnited Kingdom
                Article
                v14i5e146
                10.2196/jmir.2280
                3517341
                23076301
                bca10b9c-dd15-42d9-87b0-45f8ada36def
                ©Felix Greaves, Utz J Pape, Henry Lee, Dianna M Smith, Ara Darzi, Azeem Majeed, Christopher Millett. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 17.10.2012.

                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
                : 27 July 2012
                : 22 August 2012
                : 23 August 2012
                : 25 August 2012
                Categories
                Original Paper

                Medicine
                patient experience,primary care,internet,quality
                Medicine
                patient experience, primary care, internet, quality

                Comments

                Comment on this article