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

Q2 Medicine

Sarcoma Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2022/4351427

Leeann Qubain, Evan H Richman, Vincent Eaton, Joseph C Brinkman, Krista M Goulding

{"title":"Analysis of Negative Reviews of Orthopedic Oncology Surgeons: An Investigation of Reviews from Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google.","authors":"Leeann Qubain, Evan H Richman, Vincent Eaton, Joseph C Brinkman, Krista M Goulding","doi":"10.1155/2022/4351427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":21431,"journal":{"name":"Sarcoma","volume":"2022 ","pages":"4351427"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9759390/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sarcoma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4351427","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

对骨科肿瘤外科医生的负面评价分析:对来自healthgrade、vital和Google的评价的调查。

背景:医师评论网站(prw)的使用和普及程度越来越高。我们的目的是描述骨科肿瘤外科医生的一星评价，以了解医疗保健中有助于患者满意度的因素。方法:从肌肉骨骼肿瘤学会随机选择骨科肿瘤外科医生。在Google reviews、Healthgrades和Vitals.com上搜索一星评价。评价分为临床评价和非临床评价。对每个类别的审查和投诉频率进行统计分析。结果:在发现的7733条评论中，908条(11.7%)被确定为一星评论。907例投诉中，临床投诉362例(40.8%)，非临床投诉545例(59.2%)。最常见的非临床投诉包括对病人的态度(65%)和与医生相处的时间有限(19%)。最常见的临床主诉包括并发症(26%)和不同意治疗方案(26%)。有120例手术和221例非手术回顾。手术患者有较高的临床抱怨率。非手术患者的总抱怨率更高。结论:据我们所知，这是第一个关于骨科肿瘤外科prw的研究。大多数一星评价是由于非手术患者的非临床投诉。最常见的因素是对病人的态度、与医生相处的时间有限、电话沟通问题以及粗鲁/不专业的行为。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Sarcoma Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

14 weeks

期刊介绍： Sarcoma is dedicated to publishing papers covering all aspects of connective tissue oncology research. It brings together work from scientists and clinicians carrying out a broad range of research in this field, including the basic sciences, molecular biology and pathology and the clinical sciences of epidemiology, surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. High-quality papers concerning the entire range of bone and soft tissue sarcomas in both adults and children, including Kaposi"s sarcoma, are published as well as preclinical and animal studies. This journal provides a central forum for the description of advances in diagnosis, assessment and treatment of this rarely seen, but often mismanaged, group of patients.