Public Reporting in Germany: the Content of Physician Rating Websites

M. Emmert; U. Sander; A. S. Esslinger; M. Maryschok; O. Schöffski

doi:10.3414/ME11-01-0045

Methods of Information in Medicine, Table of Contents

Methods Inf Med 2012; 51(02): 112-120
DOI: 10.3414/ME11-01-0045

Original Articles

Schattauer GmbH

Public Reporting in Germany: the Content of Physician Rating Websites^[*]

M. Emmert

¹Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Chair of Health Management, Nuremberg, Germany:

,

U. Sander

²University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Hannover, Germany

,

A. S. Esslinger

³University of Applied Sciences Aalen, Germany and Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Chair of Strategic Management, Nuremberg, Germany

,

M. Maryschok

¹Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Chair of Health Management, Nuremberg, Germany:

,

O. Schöffski

¹Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Chair of Health Management, Nuremberg, Germany:

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Summary

Background: Physician rating websites (PRWs) are gaining in popularity among patients seeking quality information about physicians. However, little knowledge is available about the quantity and type of information provided on the websites.

Objective: To determine and structure the quantity and type of information about physicians in the outpatient sector provided on German-language physician rating websites.

Methods: In a first step, we identified PRWs through a systematic internet search using German keywords from a patient´s perspective in the two search engines Google and Yahoo. Afterwards, information about physicians available on the websites was collected and categorised according to Donabedian´s structure/process/outcome model. Furthermore, we investigated whether the information was related to the physician himself/ herself or to the practice as a whole.

Results: In total, eight PRWs were detected. Our analysis turned up 139 different information items on eight websites; 67 are related to the structural quality, 4 to process quality, 5 to outcomes, and 63 to patient satisfaction/experience. In total, 37% of all items focus specifically on the physician and 63% on the physician’s practice. In terms of the total amount of information provided on the PRWs, results range from 61 down to 13.5 items.

Conclusions: A broad range of information is available on German PRWs. While structural information can give a detailed overview of the financial, technical and human resources of a practice, other outcome measures have to be interpreted with caution. Specifically, patient satisfaction results are not risk-adjusted, and thus, are not appropriate to represent a provider’s quality of care. Consequently, neither patients nor physicians should yet use the information provided to make their final decision for or against an individual physician.

Keywords

Patient satisfaction - information dissemination - internet - physician rating website - Germany

Full Text

References

References
1 Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, District of Columbia: National Academy Press; 2001
2 Fung CH, Lim Y, Mattke S, Damberg C, Shekelle PG. Systematic review: the evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148: 111-123.
3 Lagu T, Hannon NS, Rothberg MB, Lindenauer PK. Patients’ evaluations of health care providers in the era of social networking: an analysis of physician-rating websites. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25: 942-946.
4 Faber M, Bosch M, Wollersheim H, Leatherman S, Grol R. Public reporting in health care: how do consumers use quality-of-care information? A systematic review. Med Care 2009; 47: 1-8.
5 Werner RM, Asch DA. The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. Jama-J Am Med Assoc 2005; 293: 1239-1244.
6 Colmers JM. Public Reporting and Trans-parency. 2007 Available from URL http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2007/Feb/Public%20Reporting%20and%20Transparency/Colmers_pubreportingtransparency_988%20pdf.pdf.
7 Schneider EC, Lieberman T. Publicly disclosed information about the quality of health care: response of the US public. Qual Health Care 2001; 10: 96-103.
8 Fischer GC, Glaeske G, Kuhlmey A, Schrappe M, Rosenbrock R, Schriba PC. et al. Cooperation and Responsibility: Prerequisites for Target-Oriented Health Care; Advisory Council on the Assessment of Developments in the Health Care System; Report for. 2007 Available from URL http://www.svr-gesundheit.de/Gutachten/Gutacht07/KF2007-engl.pdf.
9 Porter ME, Teisberg E. Redefining Health Care. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press; 2006.
10 Hannan EL, Kumar D, Racz M, Siu AL, Chassin MR. New York State's Cardiac Surgery Reporting System: Four years later. Ann Thorac Surg 1994; 58: 1852-1857.
11 Hannan EL, Siu AL, Kumar D, Kilburn JR H, Chassin MR. The decline in coronary artery bypass graft surgery mortality in New York State: The role of surgeon volume. J Am Med Assoc 1995; 273: 209-213.
12 Mukamel DB, Mushlin AI. Quality of care information makes a difference: An analysis of market share and price changes after publication of the New York State Cardiac Surgery Mortality Reports. Med Care 1998; 36: 945-954.
13 Chassin MR. Achieving and sustaining improved quality: Lessons from New York State and cardiac surgery. Health Affair 2002; 21: 40-51.
14 Mukamel DB, Weimer DL, Zwanziger J, Gorthy SF, Mushlin AI. Quality report cards, selection of cardiac surgeons, and racial disparities: A study of the publication of the New York State Cardiac Surgery Reports. Inquiry-J Health Car 2005; 41: 435-446.
15 Cutler DM, Huckman RS, Landrum MB. The role of information in medical markets: An analysis of publicly reported outcomes in cardiac surgery. Am Econ Rev 2004; 94: 342-346.
16 Jha AK, Epstein AM. The predictive accuracy ofthe New York State coronary artery bypass surgery report-card system. Health Affair 2006; 25: 844-855.
17 Dranove D, Sfekas A. Start Spreading the News: A Structural Estimate of the Effects of New York Hospital Report Cards. J Health Econ 2008; 27: 1201-1207.
18 Vladeck BC, Goodwin EJ, Myers LP, Sinisi M. Consumers and hospital use: The HCFA “death list”. Health Affair 1988; 7: 122-125.
19 Mennemeyer ST, Morrisey MA, Howard LZ. Death and reputation: How consumers acted upon HCFA mortality information. Inquiry-J Health Car 1997; 34: 117-128.
20 Howard DH. Quality and consumer choice in healthcare: Evidence from kidney transplantation. Top Econ Anal Policy 2006; 5: 1349
21 Howard DH, Kaplan B. Do Report Cards Influence Hospital Choice? The Case of Kidney Transplantation. Inquiry-J Health Car 2006; 43: 150-159.
22 Romano PS, Zhou H. Do well-publicized risk-adjusted outcomes reports affect hospital volume?. Med Care 2004; 42: 367-377.
23 Li Z, Carlisle DM, Marcin JP, Castellanos LR, Romano PS, Young JN. et al Impact of public reporting on access to coronary artery bypass surgery: The California Outcomes Reporting Program. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 89: 1131-1138.
24 Baker DW, Einstadter D, Thomas C, Husak S, Gordon NH, Cebul RD. The effect of publicly reporting hospital performance on market share and risk-adjusted mortality at high-mortality hospitals. Med Care 2003; 41: 729-740.
25 Stevenson DG. Is a Public Reporting Approach Appropriate for Nursing Home Care?. J Health Polit Polic 2006; 31: 773-810.
26 Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Tusler M. Hospital performance reports: Impact on quality, market share, and reputation. Health Affair 2005; 24: 1150-1160.
27 Pope DG. Reacting to Rankings: Evidence from ‘America's Best Hospitals’. J Health Econ 2009; 28: 1154-1165.
28 Bundorf MK, Chun N, Goda GS, Kessler DP. Do markets respond to quality information? The case of fertility clinics. J Health Econ 2009; 28: 718-727.
29 Wübker A, Sauerland D, Wübker A. Beeinflussen bessere Qualitätsinformationen die Krankenhauswahl in Deutschland? Eine empirische Untersuchung. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 2010; 230: 467-490.
30 Strech D. Arztbewertungsportale aus ethischer Perspektive. Eine orientierende Analyse. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2010; 104: 674-681.
31 Reimann S, Strech D. The representation of patient experience and satisfaction in physician rating sites. A criteria-based analysis of English- and German-language sites. BMC Health Serv Res 2010; 10: 332
32 Kofahl C, Nickel S, Trojan A. Arztsuche im Internet. In Böcken J, Braun B, Landmann J. editors. Gesundheitsmonitor. 2009. Gesundheitsversorgung und Gestaltungsoptionen aus der Perspektive der Bevölkerung. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung; 2009.
33 Given R. MD rating websites: current state of the space and future prospects; 2008. Available from URL http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2008/11/10/md-rating-sites-current-state-of-the-space-and-future-prospects/.
34 Emmert M, Maryschok M, Eisenreich S, Schöffski O. Arzt-Bewertungsportale im Internet - Geeignet zur Identifikation guter Arztpraxen?. Gesundheitswesen 2009; 71: e18-e27.
35 Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Meml Fund Q 1966; 44 Suppl 166-206.
36 Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed?. Jama-J Am Med Assoc 1988; 260: 1743-1748.
37 Fox S. Online health search 2006 [PEW internet & American life project]. Washington D.C.: 2006 Available from URL http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2006/PIP_Online_Health_2006.pdf.pdf.
38 Stvilia B, Mon L, Yi YJ. A model for online consumer health information quality. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 2009; 9: 1781-1791.
39 Webhits Internet Design GmbH. Web-Barometer. 2010 Available from URL http://www.webhits.de/deutsch/index.shtml?webstats.html.
40 Spink A, Jansen BJ, Wolfram D, Saracevic T. From E-Sex to E-Commerce: Web Search Changes. Computer 2002; 35: 107-109.
41 Campbell SM, Roland MO, Buetow SA. Defining quality of care. Soc Sci Med 2000; 51: 1611-1625.
42 Roeg D, van de GoorI, Garretsen H. Towards quality indicators for assertive outreach programmes for severely impaired substance abusers: concept mapping with Dutch experts. Int J Qual Health C 2005; 17: 203-208.
43 Badelt C. Soziale Dienstleistungen und der Umbau des Sozialstaates. In Hauser R. editor. Reform des Sozialstaates 1. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot; 1997.
44 van Driel ML, Sutter I an de, Christiaens TCM, Maeseneer JM de. Quality of care: the need for medical, contextual and policy evidence in primary care. J Eval Clin Pract 2005; 11: 417-429.
45 Sorian R. Measuring, reporting, and rewarding performance in health care. 2006 Available from URL http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Sorian_measuringreporting_912.pdf?section=4039.
46 Dahmen KG, Albrecht DM. An approach to quality management in anaesthesia: a focus on perioperative care and outcome. Eur J Anaesth Suppl 2001; 23: 4-9.
47 Hays RB, Veitch C, Evans RJ. The determinants of quality in procedural rural medical care. Rural Remote Health 2005; 5: 473
48 Liebel DV, Friedman B, Watson NM, Powers BA. Review of nurse home visiting interventions for community-dwelling older persons with existing disability. Med Care Res Rev 2009; 66: 119-146.
49 Simon A. Der Informationsbedarf von Patienten hinsichtlich der Krankenhausqualität: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Messung des Involvements und der Informationspräferenzen. Wiesbaden: Gabler; 2010.
50 Mostaghimi A, Crotty BH, Landon BE. The availability and nature of physician information on the internet. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25: 1152-1156.
51 Kolkmann F, Seyfarth-Metzger I, Stobrawa F. Leitfaden: Qualitätsmanagement im deutschen Krankenhaus. München: Zuckschwerdt; 2001.
52 Umpierre D, Ribeiro PAB, Kramer CK, Leitão CB, Zucatti ATN, Azevedo MJ. et al Physical activity advice only or structured exercise training and association with HbA1c levels in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jama-J Am Med Assoc 2011; 305: 1790-1799.
53 Rosen AK, Reid R, Broemeling A, Rakovski CC. Applying a risk-adjustment framework to primary care: can we improve on existing measures?. Ann Fam Med 2003; 1: 44-51.
54 Emmert M, Sander U, Maryschok M, Esslinger AS, Schöffski O. Arzt-Bewertungsportale im Inter-net: Eine aktuelle Bestandsaufnahme. IMPLICONplus - Gesundheitspolitische Analysen 2010: 9
55 Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung. Grunddaten zur vertragsärztlichen Versorgung in Deutschland. 2010 2010. Available from URL http://daris.kbv.de/daris/link.asp?ID=1003761630.
56 Scholle SH, Roski J, Adams JL, Dunn DL, Kerr EA, Dugan DP. et al Benchmarking physician performance: reliability of individual and composite measures. Am J Manag C 2008; 14: 833-838.
57 Simon A. Patienteninvolvement und Informationspräferenzen zur Krankenhausqualität. Unfallchirurg 2011; 114: 73-78.
58 Schaefer C, Schwarz S. Wer findet die besten Ärzte Deutschlands?: Arztbewertungsportale im Internet. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2010; 104: 572-577.
59 Birkmann C, Dumitru RC, Prokosch HU. Evaluation of health-related internet use in Germany. Method Inform Med 2006; 45: 367-376.

Supplementary Material

Online Supplementary Material (PDF)

Public Reporting in Germany: the Content of Physician Rating Websites[*]

Public Reporting in Germany: the Content of Physician Rating Websites^[*]