June 2022
Volume 63, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2022
Characterizing extremely negative reviews of ophthalmologists on yelp.com
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jacob Freeman Smith
    Mayo Clinic School of Medicine - Scottsdale Campus, Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
  • Muhammad Qureshi
    Mayo Clinic School of Medicine - Scottsdale Campus, Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
  • Olufunmilola Adeleye
    Mayo Clinic School of Medicine - Scottsdale Campus, Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
  • Hanna Luong
    Mayo Clinic School of Medicine - Scottsdale Campus, Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
  • Joanne Shen
    Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Jacob Smith None; Muhammad Qureshi None; Olufunmilola Adeleye None; Hanna Luong None; Joanne Shen None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2022, Vol.63, 2801 – A0131. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Jacob Freeman Smith, Muhammad Qureshi, Olufunmilola Adeleye, Hanna Luong, Joanne Shen; Characterizing extremely negative reviews of ophthalmologists on yelp.com. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):2801 – A0131.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Patient satisfaction with the care experience is a critical element of overall high quality healthcare delivery, and patients increasingly utilize online crowd-sourced physician rating tools to evaluate and select a physician. We performed a retrospective characterization of one-star reviews on yelp.com. We hypothesized that most reviews would be nonclinical in nature and that complaints referencing a procedural episode would be largely clinical in nature.

Methods : A search was performed for reviews on yelp.com using the keyword “ophthalmologist” for the top 8 most population-dense metropolitan areas in the United States. One-star reviews were classified as procedural or nonprocedural. Complaints were analyzed and categorized as clinical or nonclinical.

Results : 5,532 reviews were assessed, of which 477 (8.6%) were one-star reviews to be analyzed. These reviews amounted to 1,120 distinct complaints, 287 (25.6%) were clinical in nature and 833 (74.4%) were nonclinical. The most common clinical complaints were technical incompetence/error (50; 17.4%), unsatisfactory result (46; 16.0%), and complication (43; 15.0%). The most common nonclinical complaints were office staff interpersonal (182; 21.8%), wait time (174; 20.9%), and physician interpersonal (141; 16.9%). Patients reporting an ophthalmologic procedure (surgery, injection, etc.) wrote 64 reviews resulting in 193 (17.2%) complaints. Nonprocedural patients wrote 413 reviews resulting in 927 (82.8%) complaints. Compared with nonprocedural reviews, procedural reviews were more likely to relate a clinical complaint (93.8% procedural vs. 28.6% nonprocedural, P < 0.001).

Conclusions : The majority of one-star reviews of ophthalmologists in highly populated urban areas included in this study focused on nonclinical complaints unrelated to a procedure performed by the clinician being reviewed, confirming our hypothesis. Procedural complaints were more likely to include a clinical component to the review. These findings can help clinicians identify and address unique healthcare delivery challenges in the field of ophthalmology.

This abstract was presented at the 2022 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Denver, CO, May 1-4, 2022, and virtually.

 

Table 1. Characteristics of one-star reviews of ophthalmologists on yelp.com
<div id="accel-snackbar" style="left: 50%; transform: translate(-50%, 0px); top: 50px;"> </div>

Table 1. Characteristics of one-star reviews of ophthalmologists on yelp.com
<div id="accel-snackbar" style="left: 50%; transform: translate(-50%, 0px); top: 50px;"> </div>

 

Table 2. Characteristics and comparison of procedural vs. nonprocedural encounters

Table 2. Characteristics and comparison of procedural vs. nonprocedural encounters

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×