Patient Engagement

Transparency and Trust — Online Patient Reviews of Physicians

Article · February 3, 2017

Interview with Dr. Vivian Lee on how physicians and health care systems can get the most out of sharing patient feedback.

 

After years of academic debate over the role and value of patient-satisfaction scores and reviews of health care providers,1,2 Yelp, the online powerhouse of documenting customer satisfaction, is forcing the issue. With more than 102 million customer reviews to date, 6% of them in the health care arena, Yelp easily dwarfs longer-standing commercial physician-review sites such as Healthgrades and Vitals. A recent analysis used natural language processing tools to evaluate 17,000 Yelp reviews of 1352 hospitals and showed that they revealed information similar to that covered by 7 of the 11 categories of patient satisfaction included in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey (HCAHPS), along with 12 categories not included in the HCAHPS, such as costs, billing, and scheduling.3

Although this free and familiar platform can generate an impressive volume of feedback data, physicians do not always respond positively to the sudden exposure of sometimes negative reviews. Recent reports describe doctors and dentists who have felt compelled to post retaliatory and revealing responses that not only violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), but also threaten to undermine the fundamental trust between patients and clinicians.4

So what are the goals of transparency efforts regarding patient feedback? How can those aims best be achieved? Whose responsibility is it to provide and share these data? And what are the best media or venues for such sharing?

I believe patient reviews and feedback can serve three main goals. First, like the peer-level perspectives on consumer products and services posted on Amazon, TripAdvisor, and Yelp, reviews of physicians or hospitals can help patients make more informed consumer decisions. Publicly available reviews can help address information asymmetry in the health care market and increase patients’ confidence in their own decisions. Collectively, by making clear their preference for higher-performing systems, patients can become a market force driving quality and value in health care.

Second, patient reviews offer clinicians valuable performance feedback for learning and improving, both individually and across a system. Receptivity to performance feedback, which depends heavily on physicians’ acceptance of the data’s validity, facilitates a culture of continuous learning and patient-centeredness.

Third, health care systems and physicians who voluntarily share patient-review data visibly foster a spirit of trust with patients and the community. Patient reviews offer the opportunity to improve health care delivery while strengthening the provider–patient relationship.

With these goals in mind, various approaches to enabling and supporting patient feedback can be evaluated in the context of several key principles that are necessary for effectiveness. One principle is that data need to be trusted and considered legitimate by both physicians and patients. Existing online doctor-review websites, such as Vitals, Healthgrades, RateMDs, and Yelp, may fall short because reviewers need not have received care from the clinicians they critique. Anyone — a disgruntled neighbor, an ex-boyfriend, even a random stranger — can post a negative review of any clinician. The limitations imposed by HIPAA restrictions on the ability to verify the identities of patients posting on social media platforms may reduce the perceived validity of the reviews. Nevertheless, the sheer volume of reviewers and reviews on websites such as Yelp can mitigate this concern.

In addition, data need to be relevant and actionable. Patient-satisfaction questionnaires can cover a wide range of attributes of care, from the clarity and effectiveness of communication and shared decision making to amenities such as parking and food service. Manary et al.1 found that when metrics are designed correctly, patient surveys provide a “robust measure of quality”; they determined that characteristics of a well-defined survey include specificity about a visit, a focus on patient–provider interactions, timeliness of responses, and risk adjustment of the cohort. In sum, feedback should be specific, relevant, timely, and fair.5

Data should also include benchmarks for comparison to peers,5 which can provide some degree of the risk adjustment that Manary et al. cite as critical. Large databases of patient-satisfaction survey results, whether commercial or otherwise, make it possible to translate absolute scores from patient-satisfaction data to percentiles that reflect comparison with the appropriate peer group.

Patient feedback, like any performance feedback, influences physician behavior most effectively when it is disclosed for the purposes of educating and motivating improvement.5 In our experience, first sharing benchmarked feedback with physicians privately, providing opportunities for learning and improvement, and then increasing transparency, is effective.2 As the Yelp experience reveals, sudden, broad distribution of performance data can trigger defensiveness and undoubtedly exacerbates problems with physician morale and well-being.4

Finally, patient-satisfaction data can be an effective driver of patient-centeredness in a delivery system. Any patient-satisfaction initiative should be tracked in the context of other important metrics of delivery-system performance, such as measures of access, quality, and costs of care.

Of all the parties that are collecting and sharing patient feedback — government agencies, insurance companies, not-for-profit foundations and organizations, hospitals, for-profit rating systems, and others — health care systems are best positioned to meet these goals and to abide by these principles. Data that a health care system collects directly from its patients are considered more valid than those collected through commercial physician-rating systems and are readily amenable to benchmarking.2 They can be developed in the context of performance-improvement systems. They enhance patient trust and can inform delivery-system reform. Yet for most health care systems, transparency of performance data still represents uncharted territory.

Social platforms such as Yelp seek to define a new norm in performance-data transparency in health care and provide valuable lessons. These platforms have the strong advantages of ease of use, accessibility, and widespread familiarity. In addition, unlike most structured health care surveys, online review sites collect feedback primarily through free-response answers, which Ranard et al. have shown can broaden the scope of feedback and the domains of potential improvement.3

Example of Online Patient Reviews - Patient Ratings and Comments from the University of Utah Health Care Website

Example of Patient Ratings and Comments from the University of Utah Health Care Website. Click To Enlarge.

Over the past 4 years, several health systems have begun to share patient reviews online, applying lessons learned from existing social platforms. In late 2012, after 4 years of developing a system for data collection and feedback, my organization, University of Utah Health Care, posted its patient-satisfaction survey data and free-response comments online, adopting the five-yellow-star format that’s easily recognizable by a public familiar with Yelp and TripAdvisor (see image). For 3 consecutive years, nearly half the physicians receiving at least 30 reviews per year have scored in the top decile and a quarter of them in the 99th percentile in patient satisfaction among their peers nationally.2

In early 2014, Piedmont Healthcare became the second health system — and the first one that’s not an academic medical center — to post reviews online, followed shortly thereafter by Wake Forest Baptist Health, Northwell Health, Stanford, Cleveland Clinic, University of Pittsburgh, Duke, and more than 20 others.

Beyond patient-satisfaction data, some health systems are also championing transparency of other information, such as patient charges and performance on quality measures. Who will take responsibility for sharing these data is an open question. For example, even as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently released its much-anticipated overall Hospital Quality Star ratings, Yelp announced a partnership with ProPublica to adapt publicly available quality data for inclusion on its website, thereby continuing to advance its goal of becoming the comprehensive data source for consumer decision making.

Ultimately, transparency of validated data about delivery-system performance has the power to change the culture of health care. What sorts of data are collected, how they are shared, and whether they’re used effectively to improve performance and quality will depend on how health care professionals and patients value and use this information. The question is not whether there should be public disclosure of information on patient satisfaction, outcomes, and costs — it’s how and by whom it should be done.


SOURCE INFORMATION

From the University of Utah School of Medicine and University of Utah Health Care, Salt Lake City.

1. Manary MP, Boulding W, Staelin R, Glickman SW. The patient experience and health outcomes. N Engl J Med 2013;368:201-203. Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline
2. Lee VS, Miller T, Daniels C, Paine M, Gresh B, Betz AL. Creating the exceptional patient experience in one academic health system. Acad Med 2016;91:338-344. CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
3. Ranard BL, Werner RM, Antanavicius T, et al. Yelp reviews of hospital care can supplement and inform traditional surveys of the patient experience of care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2016;35:697-705. CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
4. Ornstein C. Doctors fire back at bad Yelp reviews — and reveal patients’ information online. Washington Post. May 27, 2016 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/27/docs-fire-back-at-bad-yelp-reviews-and-reveal-patients-information-online/).
5. Shaller D, Kanouse D. Private performance feedback reporting for physicians. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2012 (AHRQ publication no. 13-0004) (http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/clinicians-providers/resources/privfeedbackgdrpt/index.html).

This Perspective article originally appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Have an Article Idea ­for NEJM Catalyst?

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

More From Patient Engagement

Shared Decision-Making for Good Clinical Care: Better, but Not Easier

Active patient involvement and patient autonomy can be burdensome to patients, especially when they are faced with serious illness. The primary goal of shared decision-making is not autonomy, but good care that fits patients’ lives.

The Patient as Consumer and the Measurement of Bedside Manner

Many physicians do not believe patient satisfaction is a legitimate pursuit. Yet they must meet consumers of health care where they are — on Internet ratings sites.

Health Care — A Final Frontier for Design

Design must move beyond narrow projects and encompass complex systems.

Halpern02_clip_still: A/B Testing Health Behavior Interventions

A/B Testing Health Behavior

Health care can’t implement changes overnight like Silicon Valley, but we can still learn from their version of treatment and control.

Social Interventions Can Lower Costs and Improve Outcomes

We can better serve our under-resourced patients by helping them access treatments and social interventions we already know to be effective.

Better Communication Makes Better Physicians

How Adrienne Boissy and Cleveland Clinic are focusing on physician communication — and getting results.

Why Real-World Results Are So Challenging for Digital Health

User engagement outside of clinical trials is the critical factor.

Patient Engagement Survey: Technology Tools Gain Support — But Cost Is a Hurdle

NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members say patient engagement technology tools must be patient-centric and are most useful for managing chronic disease.

Patient-Researchers and Physician-Consultants Confront Chronic Disease

Personal-use sensors and data applications allow patients with Type 1 diabetes and other chronic diseases to take charge of managing their health. This is the future of chronic disease management.

Survey Snapshot: What Patient Engagement Technology Is Good For

NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members weigh in on the top benefits of medical apps and other tools, and on the barriers to adoption, including unclear impact on patient outcomes.

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

Topics

Learning to Drive — Early Exposure…

The importance of listening to the patient at the end of life.

Patient Incentives

43 Articles

A/B Testing Health Behavior

Health care can’t implement changes overnight like Silicon Valley, but we can still learn from…

Survey Snapshot: Genomic Data Is Far…

NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members say that clinical and cost data will continue to be…

Insights Council

Have a voice. Join other health care leaders effecting change, shaping tomorrow.

Apply Now