首页> 外文期刊>Journal of medical Internet research >Reporting of Patient Experience Data on Health Systems’ Websites and Commercial Physician-Rating Websites: Mixed-Methods Analysis
【24h】

Reporting of Patient Experience Data on Health Systems’ Websites and Commercial Physician-Rating Websites: Mixed-Methods Analysis

机译:报告患者体验数据的卫生系统网站和商业医师评级网站:混合方法分析

获取原文
       

摘要

BackgroundSome hospitals’ and health systems’ websites report physician-level ratings and comments drawn from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys.ObjectiveThe aim was to examine the prevalence and content of health system websites reporting these data and compare narratives from these sites to narratives from commercial physician-rating sites.MethodsWe identified health system websites active between June 1 and 30, 2016, that posted clinician reviews. For 140 randomly selected clinicians, we extracted the number of star ratings and narrative comments. We conducted a qualitative analysis of a random sample of these physicians’ narrative reviews and compared these to a random sample of reviews from commercial physician-rating websites. We described composite quantitative scores for sampled physicians and compared the frequency of themes between reviews drawn from health systems’ and commercial physician-rating websites.ResultsWe identified 42 health systems that published composite star ratings (42/42, 100%) or narratives (33/42, 79%). Most (27/42, 64%) stated that they excluded narratives deemed offensive. Of 140 clinicians, the majority had composite scores listed (star ratings: 122/140, 87.1%; narrative reviews: 114/140, 81.4%), with medians of 110 star ratings (IQR 42-175) and 25.5 (IQR 13-48) narratives. The rating median was 4.8 (IQR 4.7-4.9) out of five stars, and no clinician had a score less than 4.2. Compared to commercial physician-rating websites, we found significantly fewer negative comments on health system websites (35.5%, 76/214 vs 12.8%, 72/561, respectively; P <.001).ConclusionsThe lack of variation in star ratings on health system sites may make it difficult to differentiate between clinicians. Most health systems report that they remove offensive comments, and we notably found fewer negative comments on health system websites compared to commercial physician-rating sites.
机译:Backgroundsome医院的网站报告医生级评级和评论来自医疗保健提供者和系统调查的消费者评估。目标是审查卫生系统网站的患病率和内容报告这些数据并比较这些网站的叙述来自商业医师评级网站的叙述.Thodswe识别2016年6月1日和2016年6月30日之间活跃的卫生系统网站,发布了临床医生评论。对于140名随机选择的临床医生,我们提取了星际评级和叙述评论的数量。我们对这些医生叙述审查的随机样本进行了定性分析,并将这些与商业医师评级网站的随机评论样本进行了比较。我们描述了对采样的医生的综合定量分数,并比较了来自卫生系统的评论和商业医师评级网站之间的审核之间的主题频率。鉴定了42个卫生系统,该系统公布了复合星级(42/42,100%)或叙述(33 / 42,79%​​)。大多数(27/42,64%)表示,他们排除了叙事被认为是令人反感的。在140名临床医生中,大多数人列出了综合分数(星级评级:122/140,87.1%;叙述点评:114/140,81.4%),中位数110星级(IQR 42-175)和25.5(IQR 13- 48)叙述。评级中位数是4.8(IQR 4.7-4.9)的五星,没有临床医生的得分小于4.2。与商业医师评级网站相比,我们发现对卫生系统网站的负面评论显着较少(35.5%,76/214与12.8%,72/561,72/561分别; P <.001)。Clusionsthe在Health缺乏星形评级系统网站可能使临床医生难以区分。与商业医师评级网站相比,大多数卫生系统都会报告他们删除了令人反感的评论,并且我们显着发现关于卫生系统网站的较少的负面评论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号