Association Between Web-Based Physician Ratings and Physician Disciplinary Convictions: Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Physician rating websites are commonly used by the public, yet the relationship between web-based physician ratings and health care quality is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to use physician disciplinary convictions as an extreme marker for poor physician quality and to investigate whether disciplined physicians have lower ratings than nondisciplined matched controls. METHODS: This was a retrospective national observational study of all disciplined physicians in Canada (751 physicians, 2000 to 2013). We searched ratings (2005-2015) from the country's leading online physician rating website for this group, and for 751 matched controls according to gender, specialty, practice years, and location. We compared overall ratings (out of a score of 5) as well as mean ratings by the type of misconduct. We also compared ratings for each type of misconduct and punishment. RESULTS: There were 62.7% (471/751) of convicted and disciplined physicians (cases) with web-based ratings and 64.6% (485/751) of nondisciplined physicians (controls) with ratings. Of 312 matched case-control pairs, disciplined physicians were rated lower than controls overall (3.62 vs 4.00; P<.001). Disciplined physicians had lower ratings for all types of misconduct and punishment-except for physicians disciplined for sexual offenses (n=90 pairs; 3.83 vs 3.86; P=.81). Sexual misconduct was the only category in which mean ratings for physicians were higher than those for other disciplined physicians (3.63 vs 3.35; P=.003). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians convicted for disciplinary misconduct generally had lower web-based ratings. Physicians convicted of sexual misconduct did not have lower ratings and were rated higher than other disciplined physicians. These findings may have future implications for the identification of physicians providing poor-quality care.

Scope, Breadth, and Differences in Online Physician Ratings Related to Geography, Specialty, and Year: Observational Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Physician ratings websites have emerged as a novel forum for consumers to comment on their health care experiences. Little is known about such ratings in Canada. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the scope and trends for specialty, geographic region, and time for online physician ratings in Canada using a national data source from the country's leading physician-rating website. METHODS: This observational retrospective study used online ratings data from Canadian physicians (January 2005-September 2013; N=640,603). For specialty, province, and year of rating, we assessed whether physicians were likely to be rated favorably by using the proportion of ratings greater than the overall median rating. RESULTS: In total, 57,412 unique physicians had 640,603 individual ratings. Overall, ratings were positive (mean 3.9, SD 1.3). On average, each physician had 11.2 (SD 10.1) ratings. By comparing specialties with Canadian Institute of Health Information physician population numbers over our study period, we inferred that certain specialties (obstetrics and gynecology, family practice, surgery, and dermatology) were more commonly rated, whereas others (pathology, radiology, genetics, and anesthesia) were less represented. Ratings varied by specialty; cardiac surgery, nephrology, genetics, and radiology were more likely to be rated in the top 50th percentile, whereas addiction medicine, dermatology, neurology, and psychiatry were more often rated in the lower 50th percentile of ratings. Regarding geographic practice location, ratings were more likely to be favorable for physicians practicing in eastern provinces compared with western and central Canada. Regarding year, the absolute number of ratings peaked in 2007 before stabilizing and decreasing by 2013. Moreover, ratings were most likely to be positive in 2007 and again in 2013. CONCLUSIONS: Physician-rating websites are a relatively novel source of provider-level patient satisfaction and are a valuable source of the patient experience. It is important to understand the breadth and scope of such ratings, particularly regarding specialty, geographic practice location, and changes over time.

Impact of two-step urine culture ordering in the emergency department: a time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence against the use of antimicrobials for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), they are frequently prescribed leading to unnecessary adverse events. Prior studies have shown that reducing unnecessary urine cultures (UCs) results in decreased antimicrobial utilisation for ASB. Emergency departments (EDs) submit the largest volume of UCs, yet efforts to limit overordering in this patient setting have had limited success. METHODS: A new two-step model of care for urine collection, using a novel UC collection container, was implemented in the ED of a large community hospital. The collection system contains a preservative allowing UCs to be held at room temperature for up to 48 hours before processing. UCs were collected by front-line staff, but only processed in the microbiology lab if requested by ED physicians after clinical assessment. RESULTS: Following implementation there was a decrease in the percentage of weekly ED visits associated with a processed UC (5.97% vs 4.68%, p<0.001), a decrease in the percentage of monthly ED visits requiring a callback for positive urine culture (1.84% to 1.12%, p<0.001) and a decrease in antimicrobial prescriptions for urinary indication among admitted patients (20.6% to 10.9%, p<0.01). There was a false omission rate of 1.35% (95% CI 0.7% to 2.2%), yet no identified cases of untreated urinary tract infection (UTI), or significant change in repeat ED visits or ED length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Changing to two-step urine culture ordering in the ED resulted in a decrease in UCs processed, callbacks for positive results and antimicrobial use without evidence of untreated UTIs. This model of care has strong potential to improve the use of hospital resources while minimising detection and inappropriate treatment of ASB.

Characteristics of Internal Medicine Physicians Disciplined by Professional Colleges in Canada.

Physician misconduct is of serious concern to patient safety and quality of care. Currently, there are limited data on disciplinary proceedings involving internal medicine (IM) physicians.The aim of this study was to investigate the number and nature of disciplinary cases among IM physicians compared with those of other disciplined physicians.Our retrospective study reviewed information from all provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons (CPS) and compiled a database of all disciplined physicians from 2000 to 2013 in Canada. Disciplinary rate differences (RDs) were calculated for IM physicians and compared with other physicians.From 2000 to 2013, overall disciplinary rates were low (9.6 cases per 10,000 physician years). There were 899 disciplinary cases, 49 of which involved 45 different IM physicians. IM physicians comprised 10.8% of all disciplined physicians and were disciplined at a lower rate than non-IM physicians, incurring 5.18 fewer cases per 10,000 physician years than other physicians (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.62-6.73; P < 0.001). They were significantly less likely to be disciplined for: unprofessional conduct (RD 1.16; CI 0.45-1.87; P = 0.001); unlicensed activity (RD 0.78; CI 0.37-1.19; P < 0.001); standard of care issues (RD 1.37; CI 0.49-2.26; P = 0.002); sexual misconduct (RD 1.65; CI 0.90-2.40; P < 0.001); miscellaneous (RD 0.80; CI 0.11-1.50; P = 0.020); mental illness (RD 0.06; CI 0.01-0.12; P = 0.025); inappropriate prescribing (RD 0.74; CI 0.15-1.33; P = 0.010); and criminal conviction (RD 0.33; CI 0.00-0.65; P = 0.048). No significant differences were found with respect to unclear violations, fraudulent behavior/prevarication, or offenses involving drugs/alcohol (all RDs less than 0.32). IM physicians were also less likely to incur the following penalties: voluntary license surrender (RD 0.53; CI 0.37-0.69; P < 0.001); suspension (RD 2.39; CI 1.26-3.51; P < 0.001); retraining/assessment (RD 1.58; CI 0.77-2.39; P < 0.001); restriction (RD 1.60; CI 0.74-2.46; P < 0.001); other (RD 0.52; CI 0.07-0.97; P = 0.030); formal reprimand (RD 2.78; CI 1.77-3.79; P < 0.001); or fine (RD 3.28; CI 1.89-4.67; P < 0.001). No significant differences were found with respect to revocation or mandated counseling/rehabilitation (all RDs less than 0.46).Generally, disciplinary rates among physicians were low. Compared with other physicians, IM physicians have significantly lower disciplinary rates overall and are less likely to incur the majority of disciplinary offenses and penalties.