An Analysis of Negative One-star Patient Reviews and Complaints for Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgeons throughout the United States: A Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients commonly use physician review websites when choosing a surgeon for an elective procedure. Although data exist regarding other orthopaedic specialties, no study has investigated one-star reviews for pediatric orthopaedic surgeons. The goal of this retrospective study was to classify the factors contributing to one-star reviews of pediatric orthopaedic surgeons to identify which areas contribute to lower patient satisfaction. METHODS: Patient ratings on a 5-star system and comments about pediatric orthopaedic surgeons were collected from the state with the most physicians registered in the "Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North American" database for each of the 9 geographical regions of the United States as defined by the Association of American Medical Colleges. One-star reviews that included comments were classified as either surgical or nonsurgical. These comments were then further classified based on their content. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-four one-star reviews with 700 complaints were included in this study. Of these complaints, 481 (68.7%) were from nonsurgical patients and 219 (31.3%) were from surgical patients. Nonsurgical patients were significantly more likely to reference the amount of time spent with the physician (12.9% to 6.6%, P = 0.026), wait time (11.9% to 0.0%, P < 0.001), and bedside manner (41.2% to 22.8%, P < 0.001). Patients who said they had undergone a surgical procedure in their one-star review were significantly more likely to reference a disagreement with the physician's decision or plan (35.3% to 17.5%, P < 0.001), and uncontrolled pain (21.6% to 5.2%, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the comments that referenced medical staff or institutional complaints between surgical and nonsurgical patients (13.8% to 11.4%, P = 0.424). CONCLUSION: Most one-star reviews of pediatric orthopaedic surgeons referenced interpersonal skills and other nonclinical aspects of a clinical encounter, with bedside manner being the most frequent complaint. Patients who had undergone surgical procedures were less likely to leave a one-star review, but if they did, their comment was usually about a disagreement with the physician's plan. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Prognostic studies III.

Assessing extremely negative online patient reviews and complaints of musculoskeletal oncology surgeons in the United States: a retrospective analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Physician-review websites (PRWs) are commonly used by patients while searching for a surgeon. There is no current literature investigating the factors that contribute to online one-star reviews of musculoskeletal oncology surgeons. This retrospective study aims to identify these factors to determine areas of care affecting patient's subjective reviews. METHODS: Patient ratings and comments regarding musculoskeletal oncology surgeons from the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) were collected from Vitals.com. One-star reviews with comments were then classified as either operative or nonoperative. These complaints were then further classified based on content including wait time, uncontrolled pain, time spent with the physician, surgical outcomes, medical staff/institutional complaints, and bedside manner. RESULTS: A total of 169 reviews (375 complaints) from 181 physicians were included. Of these complaints, 198 were from patients in the operative category while 177 were from patients in the nonoperative category. Bedside manner was the most common complaint. Operative patients reported higher instances of uncontrolled pain in their reviews, whereas nonoperative patients more frequently cited wait time. No significant difference in the complaints that mentioned the amount of time spent with the physician, bedside manner, a disagreement with the plan, or the medical staff or institution was found. CONCLUSION: Online one-star reviews of musculoskeletal oncology surgeons on Vitals.com referenced both surgical and non-surgical aspects of patient encounters, with bedside manner being the most popular complaint overall. Surgical patients were more likely to complain of uncontrolled pain whereas non-operative patients were more likely to complain of wait time. TYPE OF STUDY: Outcomes 2c.

DO seniors and IMGs have lower match probabilities than MD seniors after adjusting for specialty choice and USMLE Step 1 score.

CONTEXT: It is unknown if US residency applicants of different educational backgrounds (US allopathic [MD], Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO], and international medical graduates [IMG]) but comparable academic performance have similar match success. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to compare match probabilities between applicant types after adjusting for specialty choice and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of published data in National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) reports from 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 for US MD seniors, DO seniors, and IMGs (US citizens and non-US citizens). We examined the 10 specialties with the most available spots in 2022. Average marginal effects from a multiple variable logistic regression model were utilized to estimate each non-MD senior applicant type's probability of matching into their preferred specialty compared to MD seniors adjusting for specialty choice, Step 1 score, and match year. RESULTS: Each non-MD applicant type had a lower adjusted percent difference in matching to their preferred specialty than MD seniors, -7.1 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], -11.3 to -2.9) for DO seniors, -45.6 % (-50.6 to -40.5) for US IMGs, and -56.6 % (-61.5 to -51.6) for non-US IMGs. Similarly, each non-MD applicant type had a lower adjusted percent difference in matching than MD seniors across almost all Step 1 score ranges, except for DO seniors with Step 1 scores <200 (-2.0 % [-9.5 to 5.5]). CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for specialty choice, Step 1 score, and match year, non-US MD applicants had lower probabilities of matching into their preferred specialties than their US MD colleagues.

Academic productivity correlates with industry earnings in foot and ankle fellowship programs in the United States: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The study investigates the connection between academic productivity and industry earnings in foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships. Utilizing metrics like the H-index and Open Payments Database (OPD) data, it addresses a gap in understanding the relationship between scholarly achievements and financial outcomes, providing a basis for further exploration in this specialized medical field. AIM: To elucidate the trends between academic productivity and industry earnings across foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowship programs in the United States. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of the relationship between academic productivity and industry earnings of foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships at an individual faculty and fellowship level. Academic productivity was defined via H-index and recorded from the Scopus website. Industry earnings were recorded from the OPD. RESULTS: Forty-eight foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships (100% of fellowships) in the United States with a combined total of 165 physicians (95.9% of physicians) were included. Mean individual physician (n = 165) total life-time earnings reported on the OPD website was United States Dollar (USD) 451430.30 ± 1851084.89 (range: USD 25.16-21269249.85; median: USD 27839.80). Mean physician (n = 165) H-index as reported on Scopus is 14.24 ± 12.39 (range: 0-63; median: 11). There was a significant but weak correlation between individual physician H-index and individual physician total life-time earnings (P < 0.001; Spearman's rho = 0.334) and a significant and moderate positive correlation between combined fellowship H-index and total life-time earnings per fellowship (P = 0.004, Spearman's rho = 0.409). CONCLUSION: There is a significant and positive correlation between academic productivity and industry earnings at foot and ankle orthopedic surgery fellowships in the United States. This observation is true on an individual physician level as well as on a fellowship level.