Website Ratings of Physicians and Their Quality of Care | Health Care Quality | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.204.227.34. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Hanauer  DA, Zheng  K, Singer  DC, Gebremariam  A, Davis  MM.  Public awareness, perception, and use of online physician rating sites.  JAMA. 2014;311(7):734-735.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Greaves  F, Pape  UJ, Lee  H,  et al.  Patients’ ratings of family physician practices on the Internet: usage and associations with conventional measures of quality in the English National Health Service.  J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(5):e146.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Bardach  NS, Asteria-Peñaloza  R, Boscardin  WJ, Dudley  RA.  The relationship between commercial website ratings and traditional hospital performance measures in the USA.  BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(3):194-202.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Hess  BJ, Weng  W, Lynn  LA, Holmboe  ES, Lipner  RS.  Setting a fair performance standard for physicians’ quality of patient care.  J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(5):467-473.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Anhang Price  R, Elliott  MN, Zaslavsky  AM,  et al.  Examining the role of patient experience surveys in measuring health care quality.   Med Care Res Rev. 2014;71(5):522-554. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Gao  GG, McCullough  JS, Agarwal  R, Jha  AK.  A changing landscape of physician quality reporting: analysis of patients’ online ratings of their physicians over a 5-year period.  J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(1):e38.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    ABIM scam
    george fernandez | none
    expected of the ABIM.another biased, pro-ABIM article, in order to continue their monopoly on the medical \"quality\" business.ABIM, the same organization that in exchange for co-operation from the medical establishment, for over 25 years (since 1991), granted some drs \"for-life\" BC status. so a cardiologist trained in MI treatment in the 70's-80's of bed rest and morphine, was presented to the general public as being qualified and representing the Board's \"the gold standard\". a lie, deception and a fraud.reason for which all physicians should revolt against this self serving multi-billion dollar business enterprise and corporation that has done nothing to improve quality or patient outcome. US: highest healthcare cost in the world, and 46 in healthcare outcomes and quality, despite increased number of board certifications. ABIM must be made to justify their unsubstantiated claims and investigated.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Research Letter
    February 2015

    Website Ratings of Physicians and Their Quality of Care

    Author Affiliations
    • 1American Board of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    • 2Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park
    • 3Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
    JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(2):291-293. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6291

    One-third of consumers in the United States who consulted physician website ratings reported selecting and/or avoiding physicians because of these ratings.1 However, little is known about the validity of these ratings. Available studies have focused mostly on hospital website ratings or non-US website ratings.2,3 We partially address this gap by measuring the association between US physician website ratings and traditional quality measures (QMs) of clinical and patient experience.

    We used a sample of 1299 physicians who completed an American Board of Internal Medicine Hypertension or Diabetes Practice Improvement Module between July 1, 2011, and November 30, 2012. Quality measures were drawn from about 25 Practice Improvement Module medical record abstractions and patient survey responses (59% response rate per physician). From medical record abstractions, we computed overall, intermediate outcome, and clinical process-of-care composites based on an expert panel’s assessment of quality.4 We also computed 2 QMs each for clinical and patience experience.

    ×