Martin Emmert*, Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, School of Business and Economics, Nuremberg, Germany Track: Research Presentation Topic: Personal health records and Patient portals Presentation Type: Oral presentation Submission Type: Single Presentation Building: Joseph B. Martin Conference Center at Harvard Medical School Room: A-Pechet Room Date: 2012-09-16 09:45 AM – 10:30 AM Last modified: 2012-09-12

If you are the presenter of this abstract (or if you cite this abstract in a talk or on a poster), please show the QR code in your slide or poster (QR code contains this URL).

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. In English speaking countries, such websites have a longer tradition than German offers and might differ concerning the information provided for patients.
Objective:
To determine and structure the quantity and type of information provided to patients seeking a physician on English and German language PRWs. Furthermore, usefulness of the information from a patient’s perspective is analysed.
Methods:
(1) English and German language PRWs were identified through a systematic internet search from a patient´s perspective in the two search engines Google and Yahoo. (2) Information about physicians on the websites was collected and visually documented (QSR NVivo Project 9). (3) Third, the usefulness of the information was analysed by applying Donabedian's struc-ture/process/outcome (SPO) model. Results were exported into IBM SPSS Statistics Version 19 to carry out final evaluations.
Results:
In total, twelve English and eight German language PRWs were detected. Our analysis turned up 175 different information items on all websites; 86 are related to the structural quality, 12 to process quality, 9 to outcomes, and 68 to patient satisfaction/experience. The dominant presence of structural quality information is not surprising, as structural quality information can be obtained through common data providers (physician registry, yellow pages etc.). On average, English language PRWs report on 19 information items (Max=40; Min=11), German language PRWs on 26 information items (Max=61; Min=14). The top ranked German website Arztauskunft offers by far the highest amount on structural quality (N=49), but hardly any process or outcome measures. In addition, on English language PRWs there is information provided which is not reported on German websites at all, such as social networking (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn), blog (e.g. Xanga websites), donations (e.g. political campaign), religious (religious affiliations), family (e.g. invitations), hobbies (e.g. running club), or financial items (e.g. financial purchase). All of the websites lack a great deal of relevant information, which could be included (e.g. disease specific information, scientific publications).
Conclusions:
English and German language PRWs differ significantly concerning the type and especially the quantity of information provided. However, we cannot say that the more items provided on a PRW the better, but rather, it depends on the value of each information item. For example, patients seeking a good physician for diabetes treatment will unlikely be assisted by knowing the “fax” of the physician. Instead, more helpful would be getting information for what percentage of diabetes patients the glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) measure was taken. Outcome measures are hardly available on regarded PRWs and those available 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.