Negative online reviews of orthodontists: Content analysis of complaints posted by dissatisfied patients.

INTRODUCTION: Patients may express views about their orthodontic care by posting publicly available reviews on the Internet. This study analyzed online reviews of orthodontists with an emphasis on the types and frequency of complaints expressed in negative reviews. METHODS: A random sample of 10.6% of the American Association of Orthodontists membership was evaluated to identify members practicing in a North American office that is limited to orthodontics and has an online presence. Information regarding those orthodontists and their offices was collected. For offices with Google and/or Yelp reviews, all negative (1- or 2-star) reviews were saved for content analysis. If an office posted a response to a negative review, those responses were also collected for analysis. RESULTS: Of the 807 eligible orthodontists, 92.4% had reviews on Google and/or Yelp. Average ratings of orthodontists were very positive (ie, 4- and 5-star reviews constituted >97% of Google reviews and >88% of Yelp reviews), yielding an average orthodontist rating of 4.72 on Google and 4.42 on Yelp. However, approximately half of those orthodontists (50.9%) also had at least 1 negative review. The 3 most frequently mentioned categories of complaints were regarding quality of care and/or service, interpersonal interactions, and money and/or financial issues. An analysis of the specific kinds of complaints is described. Orthodontists posting responses to negative reviews had significantly better average ratings than those who did not, but this association does not demonstrate a causal relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the complaints orthodontic patients express in online reviews may suggest strategies to improve patient satisfaction and an orthodontist's online reputation.

Assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice about biomedical waste management among healthcare staff of Fasa educational hospitals in COVID-19 pandemic.

An efficient management of biomedical waste (BMW) is essential to maintaining health and preventing environmental threats during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the present research aimed to explore the knowledge, attitude, and practice about BMW among the healthcare staff of Fasa educational hospitals. The present cross-sectional study used an online questionnaire survey to collect data from 251 employees in Valiasr and Shariati hospitals in 2021. T-test, ANOVA, and Pearson correlation coefficient were used to test the relationships between and among the variables. Demographic findings showed that the men and women participated to an almost equal rate. Most participants were young and had less than 5 years' work experience. Their mean scores of knowledge, attitude, and practice were 38.8±6.1, 83.0±8.8, and 47.5±14.5, respectively. These values point to a satisfactory level of each variable in relation to BMW management. Pearson's correlation coefficient test showed a strong positive association between knowledge and practice (r = 0.725). The T-test results showed a statistically significant relationship among knowledge, attitude, and practice across demographic variables. These included gender, ward (COVID vs. Non-COVID), and workplace (p < 0.05). ANOVA results showed statistically significant divergences in knowledge, attitude, and practice across the demographic variables, including education, position, and employment type (p < 0.05). Considering the current deficiencies among employees in terms of BMW acronyms, lack of waste training courses, and inappropriate waste plans for COVID-19 waste management, BMW training courses should be held continuously and regularly, and the content of the programs should be updated according to the emergencies.