Document Type: RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

1 Shoulder and Elbow Division, The Rothman Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA

2 Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles, CA, USA

3 Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

4 Division of Hand Surgery Rothman Institute, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

5 Director of Research, Shoulder and Elbow Division, Director of Clinical Operations at The Rothman Institute, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Abstract

Background: The goal of this study was to evaluate current physician ratings websites (PRWs) to determine which
factors correlated to higher physician scores and evaluate physician perspective of PRWs.
Methods: This study evaluated two popular websites, Healthgrades.com and Vitals.com, to gather information on
practicing physician members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Society database. A survey was conducted of
the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) membership to gather data on the perception held by individual
physicians regarding PRWs.
Results: We found that patients were more likely to give physicians positive reviews and the average overall score
was 8.35 (3.75-10). Patient wait time (P=0.052) trended toward significance as a major factor in determining the
overall scores, while ratings in both physician bedside manner (P=0.001) and physician/staff courtesy (P=0.002)
were significant in reflecting the overall score given to the physician. According to our survey, a majority of the
respondents were indifferent to highly unfavorable to PRWs (88%) and the validity of their ratings (78%).
Conclusion: As PRWs become increasingly popular amongst patients in this digital age, it is critical to understand that
the scores are not reflective of a significant proportion of the physicians’ patient population. Physicians can use this
study to determine what affects a patient’s experience and focus efforts on improving patients’ perception of quality,
overall satisfaction, and overall care. Consumers may use this study to increase their awareness of the potential for
significant sampling error inherent in PRWs when making decisions about their care.
Level of evidence: III

Keywords

Main Subjects

1. Lagu T, Hannon NS, Rothberg MB, Lindenauer PK.
Patients’ evaluations of health care providers in the
era of social networking: an analysis of physicianrating
websites. J Gen Intern Med. 2010; 25(9):942-6.
2. Emmert M, Meier F, Pisch F, Sander U. Physician choice
making and characteristics associated with using
physician-rating websites: cross-sectional study. J
Med Internet Res. 2013; 15(8):e187.
3. Emmert M, Meier F. An analysis of online evaluations
on a physician rating website: evidence from a
German public reporting instrument. J Med Internet
Res. 2013; 15(8):e157.
4. Tanne JH. Doctor-rating websites base their reports on
only a few patient reviews. BMJ. 2013; 15(346):f295.
5. Kadry B, Chu LF, Kadry B, Gammas D, Macario A.
Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates
that most patients give physicians a favorable rating. J
Med Internet Res. 2011; 13(4):e95.
6. Kirkpatrick W, Abboudi J, Kim N, Medina J, Maltenfort
M, Seigerman D, et al. An assessment of online
reviews of hand surgeons. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2017;5(3):139-44.

7. Morris BJ, Jahangir AA, Sethi MK. Patient satisfaction:
an emerging health policy issue. Am Acad Orthop
Surg. 2013; 6(1):7-9.
8. Ellimoottil C, Hart A, Greco K, Quek ML, Farooq
A. Online reviews of 500 urologists. J Urol. 2013;
189(6):2269-73.
9. Bakhsh W, Mesfin A. Online ratings of orthopedic
surgeons: analysis of 2185 reviews. Am J Orthop.
2014; 43(8):359-63.
10. Emmert M, Sander U, Pisch F. Eight questions about
physician-rating websites: a systematic review. J Med
Internet Res. 2013; 15(2):e24.
11. Samora JB, Lifchez SD, Blazar PE. Physician-rating
web sites: ethical implications. J Hand Surg Am. 2016;
41(1):104-10.e1.
12. Ellimoottil C, Leichtle SW, Wright CJ, Fakhro A,
Arrington AK, Chirichella TJ, et al. Online physician
reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Bull Am Coll
Surg. 2013; 98(9):34-9.