Examining One-Star Reviews in Orthopaedic Hand Surgeons in Large U.S. Cities

Abstract

Introduction Physician-review websites are a commonly used resource by patients when choosing a surgeon. While data exist regarding some surgical specialties, no study has examined negative one-star reviews for orthopaedic-trained hand surgeons. The goal of this study was to investigate one-star reviews regarding orthopaedic-trained hand and upper extremity surgeons in the 10 largest cities in the United States to determine the associated factors behind unsatisfied patients to improve patient care.

Materials and Methods Patient reviews and narratives of orthopaedic-trained hand surgeons were collected from the 10 largest cities in the United States using Vitals.com. One-star reviews (out of a five-star maximum) with comments were identified and classified as operative or nonoperative. These reviews were further subclassified based on the nature of the comment.

Results A total of 830 one-star reviews with 1,662 complaints were included in this study. Of these complaints, 557 (33.5%) were from patients who received operative care and 1,105 (66.5%) were from nonoperative care patients. Nonoperative patient one-star reviews had a significantly higher proportion of complaints related to bedside manners (37.6 to 19.6%, p < 0.001), not enough time spent with the provider (18.1 to 4.5%, p < 0.001), and wait time (13.3 to 3.2%, p < 0.001) as compared with operative patient one-star reviews. Operative patient one-star reviews had a higher proportion of complaints related to disagreement with the physician's decision or plan (15.6 to 10.2%, p = 0.002); uncontrolled pain (14.4 to 7.9%, p < 0.001); and medical staff or institution (17.2 to 12.9%, p = 0.018) as compared with nonoperative patients.

Discussion Most one-star reviews regarding orthopaedic-trained hand surgeons referenced nonclinical components—bedside manner was the most common complaint. It was determined that surgical patients were less likely to leave a one-star review; however, if they did, the most common complaint was in reference to a disagreement with the physician's decision or uncontrolled pain postoperatively.

Type of Study Outcomes 2c.

Keywords

physician review websites - negative reviews - patients - orthopaedic surgery

Publication History

Received: 03 November 2023

Accepted: 09 January 2024

Article published online:
31 January 2024

• References

• 1 Gao GG, McCullough JS, Agarwal R, Jha AK. A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients' online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14 (01) e38
• 2 Okike K, Peter-Bibb TK, Xie KC, Okike ON. Association between physician online rating and quality of care. J Med Internet Res 2016; 18 (12) e324
• 3 Rastegar-Mojarad M, Ye Z, Wall D, Murali N, Lin S. Collecting and analyzing patient experiences of health care from social media. JMIR Res Protoc 2015; 4 (03) e78
• 4 Hanauer DA, Zheng K, Singer DC, Gebremariam A, Davis MM. Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites. JAMA 2014; 311 (07) 734-735
• 5 Widmer RJ, Maurer MJ, Nayar VR. et al. Online physician reviews do not reflect patient satisfaction survey responses. Mayo Clin Proc 2018; 93 (04) 453-457
• 6 López A, Detz A, Ratanawongsa N, Sarkar U. What patients say about their doctors online: a qualitative content analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27 (06) 685-692
• 7 Holliday AM, Kachalia A, Meyer GS, Sequist TD. Physician and patient views on public physician rating websites: a cross-sectional study. J Gen Intern Med 2017; 32 (06) 626-631
• 8 Zhang J, Omar A, Mesfin A. Online ratings of spine surgeons: analysis of 208 surgeons. Spine 2018; 43 (12) E722-E726
• 9 Bakhsh W, Mesfin A. Online ratings of orthopedic surgeons: analysis of 2185 reviews. Am J Orthop 2014; 43 (08) 359-363
• 10 Langerhuizen DWG, Brown LE, Doornberg JN, Ring D, Kerkhoffs GMMJ, Janssen SJ. Analysis of online reviews of orthopaedic surgeons and orthopaedic practices using natural language processing. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2021; 29 (08) 337-344
• 11 Bernstein DN, Mesfin A. Physician-review websites in orthopaedic surgery. JBJS Rev 2020; 8 (03) e0158
• 12 Richman EH, Kuttner NP, Foster LO. et al. Characterizing single-star negative online reviews of orthopaedic trauma association members. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2023; 31 (08) 397-404
• 13 Pollock JR, Arthur JR, Smith JF. et al. The majority of complaints about orthopedic sports surgeons on yelp are nonclinical. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil 2021; 3 (05) e1465-e1472
• 14 Arthur JR, Etzioni D, Schwartz AJ. Characterizing extremely negative reviews of total joint arthroplasty practices and surgeons on yelp.com. Arthroplast Today 2019; 5 (02) 216-220
• 15 Trehan SK, Nguyen JT, Marx R. et al. Online patient ratings are not correlated with total knee replacement surgeon-specific outcomes. HSS J 2018; 14 (02) 177-180
• 16 Kirkpatrick W, Abboudi J, Kim N. et al. An assessment of online reviews of hand surgeons. Arch Bone Jt Surg 2017; 5 (03) 139-144
• 17 Garofolo G, Akinleye SD, Golan EJ, Choueka J. Utilization and impact of social media in hand surgeon practices. Hand (N Y) 2020; 15 (01) 75-80
• 18 Trehan SK, DeFrancesco CJ, Nguyen JT, Charalel RA, Daluiski A. Online patient ratings of hand surgeons. J Hand Surg Am 2016; 41 (01) 98-103
• 19 Zeckhauser R, Sommers B. Consumerism in health care: challenges and opportunities. Virtual Mentor 2013; 15 (11) 988-992
• 20 Lee V. Transparency and trust—online patient reviews of physicians. N Engl J Med 2017; 376 (03) 197-199