Physician and Patient Views on Public Physician Rating Websites: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Numerical ratings and narrative comments about physicians are increasingly available online. These physician rating websites include independent websites reporting crowd-sourced data from online users and health systems reporting data from their internal patient experience surveys. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient and physician views on physician rating websites. DESIGN: Cross-sectional physician (electronic) and patient (paper) surveys conducted in August 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Eight hundred twenty-eight physicians (response rate 43%) affiliated with one of four hospitals in a large accountable care organization in eastern Massachusetts; 494 adult patients (response rate 34%) who received care in this system in May 2015. MAIN MEASURES: Use and perceptions of physician rating websites. KEY RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of physicians and 39% of patients reported visiting a physician rating website at least once. Physicians reported higher levels of agreement with the accuracy of numerical data (53%) and narrative comments (62%) from health system patient experience surveys compared to numerical data (36%) and narrative comments (36%) on independent websites. Patients reported higher levels of agreement with trusting the accuracy of data obtained from independent websites (57%) compared to health system patient experience surveys (45%). Twenty-one percent of physicians and 51% of patients supported posting narrative comments online for all consumers. The majority (78%) of physicians believed that posting narrative comments online would increase physician job stress; smaller proportions perceived a negative effect on the physician-patient relationship (46%), health care overuse (34%), and patient-reported experiences of care (33%). Over one-fourth of patients (29%) believed that posting narrative comments would cause them to be less open. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians and patients have different views on whether independent or health system physician rating websites are the more reliable source of information. Their views on whether such data should be shared on public websites are also discordant.

The hidden patient: The CARE framework to care for caregivers.

Caregivers, or persons who provide unpaid support to a loved one who could not manage to live independently or whose health or well-being would deteriorate without this help, are increasingly common. These rates have only increased with the COVID-19 pandemic forcing many to care for sick family members in the short or long term. Unfortunately, caregiving is associated with significant burden and health risks, not only for caregivers themselves but also for the care recipients of overwhelmed caregivers. These risks have also been exacerbated by the social isolation of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although interventions exist which have been proven to reduce caregiver burden, education on these interventions is lacking, partly because there has not been a memorable framework on how to care for caregivers. In this paper, an innovative framework to teach clinicians about caring for caregivers is introduced, the C.A.R.E. framework: Caregiver well-being, Advanced care planning, Respite, and Education. This simple framework will help providers become aware of caregiver needs, comfortable in addressing their needs, and able to suggest interventions proven to reduce caregiver burden. Knowledge of this framework should start with medical students so that they can incorporate this critical aspect of primary care into their clinical practice early on in their careers. If providers can simply remember to perform these four interventions, to C.A.R.E. for our caregivers, then they will make a significant impact on the lives of both our patients and their loved ones, during the present COVID-19 pandemic and thereafter.

Physician and patient tools to improve chronic kidney disease care.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if electronic health record (EHR) tools and patient engagement can improve the quality of chronic kidney disease (CKD) care. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We enrolled 153 primary care physicians caring for 3947 high-risk and 3744 low-risk patients with stage III CKD across 13 ambulatory health centers in eastern Massachusetts. Intervention physicians received a set of electronic alerts during office visits recommending risk-appropriate CKD care. Patients of intervention physicians also received tailored educational mailings. For high-risk patients, we assessed for a visit with a nephrologist and prescription of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) during the 12-month study period. For low-risk patients, we assessed for a urine microalbumin screening and prescription of an ACE inhibitor or ARB during the 12-month study period. RESULTS: Among high-risk patients, those in the intervention arm were significantly more likely to have an office visit with a nephrologist compared with those in the control arm (45% vs 34%; P <.001). Among low-risk patients, those in the intervention arm were significantly more likely than those in the control arm to have received urine microalbumin testing (45% vs 21%; P <.001). There was no difference between the intervention and control arms in rates of prescription of an ACE inhibitor or ARB in either the high-risk patient group (76% vs 79%; P = .17) or the low-risk patient group (64% vs 65%; P = .57). CONCLUSIONS: A combined program of EHR tools and patient engagement improved some areas of CKD care, but substantial gaps remain.