The value of Facebook in nation-wide hospital quality assessment: a national mixed-methods study in Norway

Oyvind Bjertnaes, H. Iversen, K. Skyrud, Kirsten Danielsen
{"title":"The value of Facebook in nation-wide hospital quality assessment: a national mixed-methods study in Norway","authors":"Oyvind Bjertnaes, H. Iversen, K. Skyrud, Kirsten Danielsen","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives The objective was to assess the possibility of using a combination of official and unofficial Facebook ratings and comments as a basis for nation-wide hospital quality assessments in Norway. Methods All hospitals from a national cross-sectional patient experience survey in 2015 were matched with corresponding Facebook ratings. Facebook ratings were correlated with both case-mix adjusted and unadjusted patient-reported experience scores, with separate analysis for hospitals with official site ratings and hospitals with unofficial site ratings. Facebook ratings were also correlated with patient-reported incident scores, hospital size, 30-day mortality and 30-day readmission. Facebook comments from 20 randomly selected hospitals were analysed, contrasting the content and sentiments of official versus unofficial Facebook pages. Results Facebook ratings were significantly correlated with most patient-reported indicators, with the highest correlations relating to unadjusted scores for organisation (0.60, p<0.000) and nursing services (0.57, p<0.000). Facebook ratings were significantly correlated with hospital size (−0.40, p=0.003) and 30-day mortality (0.31, p=0.040). Sentiment analysis showed that 84.7% of the comments from unofficial Facebook sites included neutral comments that did not give any specific description of experiences of the quality of care at the hospital. Content analysis identified common themes on official and unofficial Facebook pages. Conclusions Facebook ratings were associated with patient-reported indicators, hospital size, and 30-day mortality. Qualitative comments from official Facebook are more relevant for hospital evaluation than unofficial sites. More research is needed on using Facebook ratings as a standalone indicator of patient experiences in national quality measurement, and such ratings should be reported together with research-based patient experience indicators and with explicit criteria for the inclusion of unofficial sites.","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":"29 1","pages":"217 - 224"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009456","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009456","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Objectives The objective was to assess the possibility of using a combination of official and unofficial Facebook ratings and comments as a basis for nation-wide hospital quality assessments in Norway. Methods All hospitals from a national cross-sectional patient experience survey in 2015 were matched with corresponding Facebook ratings. Facebook ratings were correlated with both case-mix adjusted and unadjusted patient-reported experience scores, with separate analysis for hospitals with official site ratings and hospitals with unofficial site ratings. Facebook ratings were also correlated with patient-reported incident scores, hospital size, 30-day mortality and 30-day readmission. Facebook comments from 20 randomly selected hospitals were analysed, contrasting the content and sentiments of official versus unofficial Facebook pages. Results Facebook ratings were significantly correlated with most patient-reported indicators, with the highest correlations relating to unadjusted scores for organisation (0.60, p<0.000) and nursing services (0.57, p<0.000). Facebook ratings were significantly correlated with hospital size (−0.40, p=0.003) and 30-day mortality (0.31, p=0.040). Sentiment analysis showed that 84.7% of the comments from unofficial Facebook sites included neutral comments that did not give any specific description of experiences of the quality of care at the hospital. Content analysis identified common themes on official and unofficial Facebook pages. Conclusions Facebook ratings were associated with patient-reported indicators, hospital size, and 30-day mortality. Qualitative comments from official Facebook are more relevant for hospital evaluation than unofficial sites. More research is needed on using Facebook ratings as a standalone indicator of patient experiences in national quality measurement, and such ratings should be reported together with research-based patient experience indicators and with explicit criteria for the inclusion of unofficial sites.
Facebook在全国医院质量评估中的价值:挪威的一项国家混合方法研究
目的是评估结合使用官方和非官方的Facebook评分和评论作为挪威全国医院质量评估基础的可能性。方法将2015年全国断面患者体验调查的所有医院与相应的Facebook评分进行匹配。Facebook的评分与病例组合调整后的和未调整的患者报告的体验评分都相关,对官方网站评分的医院和非官方网站评分的医院进行了单独的分析。Facebook评分还与患者报告的事件评分、医院规模、30天死亡率和30天再入院率相关。对随机选择的20家医院的Facebook评论进行了分析,对比了官方和非官方Facebook页面的内容和情绪。结果Facebook评分与大多数患者报告的指标显著相关,与组织(0.60,p<0.000)和护理服务(0.57,p<0.000)的未调整评分相关性最高。Facebook评分与医院规模(- 0.40,p=0.003)和30天死亡率(0.31,p=0.040)显著相关。情感分析显示,来自非官方Facebook网站的84.7%的评论包括中立的评论,这些评论没有对医院的护理质量进行任何具体的描述。内容分析确定了官方和非官方Facebook页面上的共同主题。结论:Facebook评分与患者报告的指标、医院规模和30天死亡率相关。与非官方网站相比,来自Facebook官方网站的定性评论与医院评估更相关。在使用Facebook评分作为国家质量测量中患者体验的独立指标方面,还需要进行更多的研究,这些评分应与基于研究的患者体验指标一起报告,并与纳入非官方网站的明确标准一起报告。
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
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信