Analyzing Child Firearm Assault Injuries by Race and Ethnicity During the COVID-19 Pandemic in 4 Major US Cities.

This cross-sectional study examines changes in rates and disparities of fatal and nonfatal firearm assaults among children in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Racial Disparities in Child Exposure to Firearm Violence Before and During COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Childhood exposure to neighborhood firearm violence adversely affects mental and physical health across the life course. Study objectives were to (1) quantify racial disparities in these exposures across the U.S. and (2) assess changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, when firearm violence increased. METHODS: The study used counts of children aged 5-17 years, disaggregated by U.S. Census racial category, for every census tract (N=73,056). Neighborhood firearm violence was the number of fatal shootings per census tract, based on 2015-2021 Gun Violence Archive data. Quasi-Poisson regressions were used to estimate baseline disparities and COVID-19‒related changes and examined differences across geographic regions. RESULTS: Prepandemic exposure was lowest among White children and highest among Black children, who experienced 4.44 times more neighborhood firearm violence exposure (95% CI=4.33, 4.56, p<0.001) than White children. The pandemic increased exposure by 27% in the lowest risk group (i.e., White children; 95% CI=20%, 34%, p<0.001), but pandemic effects were even greater for children in nearly all non-White categories. Baseline violence levels and racial disparities varied considerably by region, with the highest levels in the South and the largest magnitude disparities observed in the Northeast and Midwest. CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale racial disparities exist in child exposure to neighborhood firearm violence, and these disparities grew during the pandemic. Equitable access to trauma-informed programs, community-based prevention, and structural reforms are urgently needed.

A Comparison of Online Physician Ratings and Internal Patient-Submitted Ratings from a Large Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Physician online ratings are ubiquitous and influential, but they also have their detractors. Given the lack of scientific survey methodology used in online ratings, some health systems have begun to publish their own internal patient-submitted ratings of physicians. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare online physician ratings with internal ratings from a large healthcare system. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study comparing online ratings with internal ratings from a large healthcare system. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente, a large integrated healthcare delivery system. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians in the Southern California region of Kaiser Permanente, including all specialties with ambulatory clinic visits. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was correlation between online physician ratings and internal ratings from the integrated healthcare delivery system. RESULTS: Of 5438 physicians who met inclusion and exclusion criteria, 4191 (77.1%) were rated both online and internally. The online ratings were based on a mean of 3.5 patient reviews, while the internal ratings were based on a mean of 119 survey returns. The overall correlation between the online and internal ratings was weak (Spearman's rho .23), but increased with the number of reviews used to formulate each online rating. CONCLUSIONS: Physician online ratings did not correlate well with internal ratings from a large integrated healthcare delivery system, although the correlation increased with the number of reviews used to formulate each online rating. Given that many consumers are not aware of the statistical issues associated with small sample sizes, we would recommend that online rating websites refrain from displaying a physician's rating until the sample size is sufficiently large (for example, at least 15 patient reviews). However, hospitals and health systems may be able to provide better information for patients by publishing the internal ratings of their physicians.

Association Between Physician Online Rating and Quality of Care.

BACKGROUND: Patients are increasingly using physician review websites to find "a good doctor." However, to our knowledge, no prior study has examined the relationship between online rating and an accepted measure of quality. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the association between online physician rating and an accepted measure of quality: 30-day risk-adjusted mortality rate following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: In the US states of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania-which together account for over one-quarter of the US population-risk-adjusted mortality rates are publicly reported for all cardiac surgeons. From these reports, we recorded the 30-day mortality rate following isolated CABG surgery for each surgeon practicing in these 5 states. For each surgeon listed in the state reports, we then conducted Internet-based searches to determine his or her online rating(s). We then assessed the relationship between physician online rating and risk-adjusted mortality rate. RESULTS: Of the 614 surgeons listed in the state reports, we found 96.1% (590/614) to be rated online. The average online rating was 4.4 out of 5, and 78.7% (483/614) of the online ratings were 4 or higher. The median number of reviews used to formulate each rating was 4 (range 1-89), and 32.70% (503/1538) of the ratings were based on 2 or fewer reviews. Overall, there was no correlation between surgeon online rating and risk-adjusted mortality rate (P=.13). Risk-adjusted mortality rates were similar for surgeons across categories of average online rating (P>.05), and surgeon average online rating was similar across quartiles of surgeon risk-adjusted mortality rate (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of cardiac surgeons practicing in the 5 US states that publicly report outcomes, we found no correlation between online rating and risk-adjusted mortality rates. Patients using online rating websites to guide their choice of physician should recognize that these ratings may not reflect actual quality of care as defined by accepted metrics.