Search

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to quantify social media usage among Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) members., Methods: All active OTA members were searched for involvement among common social media platforms. Surgeons were then classified as "active" on any given social media site if they posted within the past 6 months. Surgeons were also identified by the region they practiced in, sex, and their practice setting (academic vs. private). Finally, a surgeon's score and number of reviews from common physician review websites were examined., Results: A total of 1465 OTA members were included in the analysis. Most surgeons were male (89.1% [n = 1305]) and practiced in a private setting (54.5% [n = 799]). A total of 590 surgeons (40.3%) had at least one form of social media account. Social media sites most used were LinkedIn with 48.7% (n = 713) and ResearchGate with 29.2% (n = 428). Academic surgeons were more likely to have a ResearchGate, LinkedIn, and Twitter account while private surgeons were more likely to have a personal website ( P < 0.05). Finally, there was no correlation between surgeons more active on social media and average scores on Vitals.com or Healthgrade.com ( P > 0.05)., Conclusions: Most orthopaedic trauma surgeons do not have professional social media accounts. Although social media may help spread scholarship, having a professional social media account does not correlate with better online physician reviews or increased online reviews among orthopaedic trauma surgeons., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to characterize factors that contribute to 1-star negative reviews regarding orthopaedic trauma surgeons., Methods: A search was done for Orthopaedic Trauma Association members on Yelp.com , Healthgrade.com , and Vitals.com in New York, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Phoenix, Seattle, Baltimore, Denver, Houston, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC. All single-star reviews (out of a possible 5 stars) were included in this study. Reviews were categorized as either clinical or nonclinical and then further subcategorized. Categorical variables were analyzed using a chi-square test. The rate ratio (the ratio of the rate for nonsurgical divided by surgical reviews) was determined for each category., Results: Two hundred eighty-eight single-star reviews were included in the study, comprising 655 total complaints. Of all complaints, 274 (41.8%) were clinically related and 381 (58.2%) were nonclinical. Of the 288 single-star reviews, 96 (33.3%) were from surgically treated patients and 192 (66.7%) were from nonsurgical patients. Most complaints were in reference to nonclinical aspects of care such as physician bedside manner (173 reviews, 60%), not enough time spent with provider (58 reviews, 20%), and wait time (42 complaints, 15%). The most common clinical complaints were for complication (61 reviews, 21%), disagree with decision/plan (49 reviews, 17%), and uncontrolled pain (45 reviews, 16%). Surgical patients had a significantly higher rate of clinical complaints than nonsurgical patients (1.57 vs. 0.64 clinical complaints per review, P < 0.001). Nonsurgical patients had a significantly higher rate of nonclinical complaints than surgical patients (1.43 vs. 1.10 nonclinical complaints per review, P < 0.001)., Discussion: Most 1-star reviews referenced a nonclinical aspect of care with a physician's bedside manner being the most common complaint. Surgical patients were markedly more likely to reference a clinical aspect of care, such as complications or misdiagnosis compared with nonsurgical patients, who more commonly referenced nonclinical aspects of care., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Background: Medicare payment has been examined in a variety of medical and surgical specialties. This study examines Medicare payment in the subspecialty of orthopaedic oncology., Methods: The Physician Fee Schedule Look-up Tool was used to obtain payment information from 2000 to 2020 for procedures related to orthopaedic oncology billed to Medicare., Results: For the 38 included orthopaedic oncology procedures, inflation-adjusted Medicare payment decreased an average of 13.6% overall from 2000 to 2020. After adjusting for inflation, the payment for procedures related to spine and pelvis increased by 7.6%, procedures relating to limb salvage increased by 14.6%, procedures associated with the surgical management of complications decreased by 26.9%, and procedures relating to metastatic disease management decreased by 34.8%., Conclusion: Medicare payment has declined by 13.6% from 2000 to 2020. This variation in Medicare payment represents a difference in valuation of these procedures by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and could be used to direct healthcare policy., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Background: The growing focus on subjective patient experiences has created an increase in popularity for physician rating websites. The purpose of this study was to characterize extremely negative reviews of pediatric orthopaedic surgeons., Methods: Pediatric orthopaedic surgeons were randomly selected using the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America comprehensive list of surgeons. A search was then performed on Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, and Yelp.com for 1-star reviews. Reviews were classified into clinical and nonclinical categories. Statistical analyses were performed regarding the frequency of reviews and complaints for each respective category., Results: Of the 279 one-star reviews categorized, 248 reviews (88.9% of reviews) included nonclinical complaints, and 182 reviews (65.2% of reviews) included clinical complaints. Nonsurgical patients were associated with 255 reviews, and the remaining 24 were related to surgical patients. Of the 430 comments within reviews, 248 referenced nonclinical aspects of care, and 182 referenced clinical care. Clinical factors most frequently noted included clinical disagreement (37%), unclear treatment plan (25%), complication (17%), misdiagnosis (15%), uncontrolled pain (13%), and delay in care (8%). The most addressed nonclinical factors included physician bedside manner (68%), time spent with provider (21%), wait time (18%), unprofessional staff (17%), scheduling issues (9%), cost (8%), and billing (8%). Compared with surgical reviews, nonsurgical reviews were more likely to contain nonclinical complaints (rate ratio: 1.5; P<0.05) and less likely to contain clinical complaints (rate ratio: 0.7; P<0.05). The most common complaint by surgical patients was complications (91.7%)., Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the factors associated with negative reviews of pediatric orthopaedic surgeons. The majority of reviews of pediatric orthopaedic surgeons were left by nonsurgical patients and were related to nonclinical aspects of care. We also found surgeon-dependent factors such as poor physician bedside manner, unclear treatment plan, or parents' disagreement with treatment plan were the most common reasons for negative reviews., Level of Evidence: Level IV., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The increased focus on patient satisfaction has led to growth in the use of physician rating websites. Purpose: To analyze the factors associated with online 5-star patient reviews for orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: A total of 70 orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons were randomly selected from the AOSSM website. A search was performed for these surgeons on Yelp.com. All reviews other than 5 stars (of a possible 5 stars) were excluded from the study. Each review was categorized as referring to a surgical or nonsurgical aspect of care, and each comment within the review was categorized as being clinically or nonclinically related. Comments were further subcategorized by specific features such as bedside manner, clinical outcomes, and patient education. Categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square test. Results: Overall, 400 five-star reviews were included in the study, comprising 1225 total positive comments. Of the 400 five-star reviews, 200 (50%) were from surgically treated patients, and 200 (50%) were from nonsurgically treated patients. Of the 1225 positive comments, 505 (41%) were clinically related, and 720 (59%) were nonclinical. The most common positive clinical comments were for clear treatment plans (191 reviews [48%]), good outcomes (173 reviews [43%]), and providing alternative treatment plans (55 reviews [14%]). The most common positive nonclinical comments were for good physician bedside manner (287 reviews [72%]), friendly/professional staff (194 reviews [49%]), and ease of scheduling (68 reviews [17%]). Conclusion: The majority of 5-star patient reviews left positive comments regarding nonclinical aspects of care such as physician bedside manner and friendly staff. The most common positive comments regarding clinical aspects concerned good outcomes and clear treatment plans. The overall most common positive comment, in both surgically and nonsurgically treated patients, referred to good bedside manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]