Abstract
Purpose :
Patients increasingly use online reviews from other patients to help decide which physicians or institutions to access for care. Academic institutions may have particular hurdles in providing satisfying care for patients, given the complexity of disease burden, teaching and training mission, incorporation of research protocols into the practice, and need to accept all emergent/urgent patients as tertiary providers. We hypothesize that patient experience ratings for top-ranked academic ophthalmic practices may be lower than for private ophthalmology practices in a similar location. By elucidating the differences in patient experience between academic and private institutions, we hope to uncover concrete ways to improve ophthalmology care for all patient populations.
Methods :
Google ratings (on a 1 to 5 scale) and written reviews were obtained for 9 US News & World Report (USNWR) top-ranked ophthalmic institutions and also for the first 40 listed private ophthalmology practices in each corresponding geographic region. Note that USNWR ranking is determined by peer ophthalmologists and is not influenced by patient reviews. After data retrieval, institutions and locations were de-identified so that their names would not appear in further analysis or presentations.
Results :
For each USNWR institution, the mean patient rating was lower than the composite rating for geographically-matched private practices (mean difference = -0.93, range = -0.55 to -1.83). Across the cohort, the difference in ratings between USNWR institutions and matched private practices was highly significant (paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test p-value= 0.0039). Review of patient experience comments from USNWR institutions demonstrates frequent dissatisfaction with wait time during an appointment, difficulties in accessing care, billing issues, optical shop problems, and other factors not directly related to quality of care.
Conclusions :
Online patient experience rating scores may not accurately capture the unique aspects of care provided by academic institutions. While referring ophthalmologists may be a better judge of quality than online reviews, online ratings still provide relevant information about frequent patient criticisms and concerns. Academic institutions may use results of online reviews as an opportunity to examine and improve patient satisfaction.
This is a 2020 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.