ABSTRACT
Background: Patient reviews provide an important referral source for physicians and an opportunity to improve practice performance. This study's objective was to characterize the online reviews of hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons published by three of the industry's leading platforms. Methods: A random sample of 1000 hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons across all 50 US states (10 hip and 10 knee surgeons per state) was generated using Google Search. A total of 7842 online reviews posted for those surgeons on Healthgrades, Vitals, and Google were analyzed. A range of surgeons, affiliated hospitals, and reviewer attributes was compared to identify significant predictors of patient satisfaction. Results: The study cohort had 98.1% male surgeons with a mean age of 53.55 ± 8.94 years and mean experience of 26.43 ± 9.21 years. Younger age (p < 0.001), shorter years of experience (p < 0.001), and arthroplasty fellowship training (p < 0.001) were associated with more positive ratings. Reviewer anonymity, observed in 30.93% of all reviews, tended to correlate with more negative ratings (p < 0.001). Overall, 86.93% of patient remarks were positive, and only 74.81% of remarks centered on physician attributes. The five leading components of patient satisfaction were perceptions of physician competence (34.81%, p < 0.001), bedside manner (23.83%, p = 0.002), and communication (16.17%, p = 0.94); interactions with physician extenders (14.75%, p < 0.001); and wait time (2.73%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: While most ratings of hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons were positive, more than a quarter of reviews were either not directly related to the individual surgeons or were submitted anonymously. Caution is advised regarding overreliance on patient experience surveys as predictors of physician performance.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The term "holdover admissions" refers to patients admitted by an overnight physician and whose care is then transferred to a new primary team the next morning. Descriptions of the holdover process in internal medicine are sparse. OBJECTIVE: To identify important factors affecting the quality of holdover handoffs at an internal medicine (IM) residency program and to compare them to previously identified factors for other handoffs. DESIGN: We undertook a qualitative study using structured focus groups and interviews. We analyzed data using qualitative content analysis. PARTICIPANTS: IM residents, IM program directors, and hospitalists at a large academic medical center. MAIN MEASURES: A nine-question open-ended interview guide. KEY RESULTS: We identified 13 factors describing holdover handoffs. Five factors-physical space, standardization, task accountability, closed-loop verification, and resilience-were similar to those described in prior handoff literature in other specialties. Eight factors were new concepts that may uniquely affect the quality of the holdover handoff in IM. These included electronic health record access, redundancy, unwritten thoughts, different clinician needs, diagnostic uncertainty, anchoring, teaching, and feedback. These factors were organized into five overarching themes: physical environment, information transfer, responsibility, clinical reasoning, and education. CONCLUSIONS: The holdover handoff in IM is complex and has unique considerations for achieving high quality. Further exploration of safe, efficient, and educational holdover handoff practices is necessary.
