Abstract
This study explores reasons for both excellent and poor patient reviews on websites rating physicians.
There is an increasing trend of potential patients who use the internet to research physicians. According to a survey performed by Softwareadvice.com in 2013 and 2014, the percentage of patients using online reviews to find their physician increased from 25% to 42%. In addition, the survey found that http://www.Yelp.com was the most trusted website during both years. When discussing facial plastic surgeons, there are no studies regarding Yelp, but there are articles concerning online reviews of otolaryngologists, dermatologists, radiologists, orthopedic surgeons, and urologists.
The goal of this study is to examine the reasons for both positive and negative patient reviews of physicians.
Methods
In May 2014, 5 cities were examined: New York City, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, and Chicago. These cities were chosen as a sample to limit the scope of this investigation. All dermatologists, plastic surgeons, and facial plastic surgeons were examined. To filter lower-quality reviews, inclusion criteria included a 3-sentence minimum and more than 20 reviews for each practice. For the physician, bedside manner, knowledge, and results were examined. Bedside manner was defined as the physician’s approach or attitude toward the patient (ie, “keeps patients calm during procedures,” “doctor…doesn’t care”). For the office and staff portion, consultation cost, wait time, and customer service were measured.
Results
In total, 842 reviews were examined, and after inclusion criteria, 200 reviews were included for analysis. In some reviews, there was more than 1 comment why a patient gave the rating they did. Within the 200 reviews, there were 264 comments, comprised of 152 comments for 5-star reviews, and 112 comments for 1-star reviews.
The most common reason for a 5-star review was bedside manner, composing 40 of 152 comments (26.3%). Furthermore, 33 of 152 comments (21.7%) accompanied 5-star reviews based on how knowledgeable the physician seemed to be, and 26 of 152 comments (17.0%) accompanied 5-star reviews on how much the patient liked their results. The full results for 5-star reviews are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of 152 Five-Star Reviews.
| Characteristic | No. (%) |
|---|---|
| Bedside manner | 40 (26.3) |
| Knowledge | 33 (21.7) |
| Results | 26 (17.1) |
| Honesty/pressure | 17 (11.2) |
| Office staff | 17 (11.2) |
| Wait time/scheduling | 12 (7.9) |
| Cost | 7 (4.6) |
| Consultation fee | 0 |
Bedside manner was mentioned most often in comments and seems most important to reviewers (26 of 112 comments [23.0%]). A very close second is a feeling of dishonesty or pressure from the physician being reviewed (25 of 112 comments [22%]). A rude office staff was discussed by 20 comments (17.9%). The results for 1-star reviews are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Characteristics for 112 One-Star Reviews.
| Characteristic | No. (%) |
|---|---|
| Bedside manner | 26 (23.1) |
| Honesty/pressure | 25 (22.3) |
| Office staff | 20 (17.9) |
| Results | 15 (13.4) |
| Cost | 8 (7.1) |
| Wait time/scheduling | 8 (7.1) |
| Knowledge | 7 (6.3) |
| Consultation fee | 3 (2.7) |
Discussion
Online reviews have been growing in popularity since their introduction. Our findings demonstrate that in both 1-star and 5-star reviews, bedside manner is the most important factor, and satisfactory results is third most important. For 1-star reviews, the second most common complaint is the feeling of being pressured or being lied to by a dishonest physician. This reminds us to remain ethical and not pressure patients into procedures they are not looking for. Another common complaint was rude office staff. This reinforces how important the staff is to a practice’s reputation.
Online reviews can also be used for feedback (both positive and negative) for staff members, as well as the physician. If a review or comment mentions a staff member is impolite, it would be a great time to acknowledge this to the staff member. The goal of this article is to educate fellow physicians to minimize unhappy patients who use the internet to vent their frustrations.
One limitation of this study is that it looks at reviews of 5 large cities and may just reflect the attitudes of urban consumers that do not apply to all areas. Second, because this is a qualitative review, comments could only be tallied, which makes further analysis difficult. Future articles can focus on comparing Yelp to other sites, such as http://www.realself.com.
The internet has increased word-of-mouth communication so that the reputation of potentially every medical practice is on display for anyone to see. Patient satisfaction with results with superior physician bedside manner yields the best reviews.
References
- 1.Leslie J. Software Advice. Patient Use of Online Reviews - 2014. http://www.softwareadvice.com/resources/medical-online-reviews-report-2014/. Accessed January 3, 2017.
- 2.Sobin L, Goyal P. Trends of online ratings of otolaryngologists: what do your patients really think of you? JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140(7):635-638. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Smith RJ, Lipoff JB. Evaluation of dermatology practice online reviews: lessons from qualitative analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152(2):153-157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Gilbert K, Hawkins CM, Hughes DR, et al. Physician rating websites: do radiologists have an online presence? J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12(8):867-871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Frost C, Mesfin A. Online reviews of orthopedic surgeons: an emerging trend. Orthopedics. 2015;38(4):e257-e262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ellimoottil C, Hart A, Greco K, Quek ML, Farooq A. Online reviews of 500 urologists. J Urol. 2013;189(6):2269-2273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]