[Satisfaction of Rehabilitation Patients on Social Media Websites and Online Rating Portals]. / Rehabilitandenzufriedenheit in den sozialen Medien und auf Online-Bewertungsportalen.

PURPOSE: Patients increasingly express themselves about their medical rehabilitation stay, evaluate health service providers with star ratings, and write reviews on the internet. So far, no results are available regarding online patient satisfaction for inpatient medical rehabilitation in Germany. For the first time, this study conducted a systematic analysis of rehabilitation patient satisfaction on social media websites and hospital rating portals. METHODS: We collected reviews of medical rehabilitation on the portal Klinikbewertungen.de and the social network Facebook for 8 indication groups (orthopedics, psychosomatics/psychotherapy, oncology, cardiology, neurology, internal medicine, pulmonology/dermatology, gastroenterology) with a full data extraction over 3 survey years (October 2014-September 2017) and for rehabilitation clinics with main bed occupancy of retirement insurance (N=497). The star ratings, aggregated according to indication groups, were evaluated to determine patient satisfaction (Pearson's chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, Phi coefficient). RESULTS: A total of 97.2% of the rehabilitation clinics were represented, with 24,806 ratings on Klinikbewertungen.de. The most frequently evaluated indication groups were orthopedics (38.5%) and psychosomatics/psychotherapy (27.1%). Facebook ratings (N=4,127) were collected for rehabilitation clinics with one department (38.6%) in order to ensure an indication group assignment. Almost the same number of ratings were determined on official (48.7%) and unofficial Facebook pages (51.3%), with no significant correlation between website management and overall satisfaction (p>0.05). On the Facebook pages of the rehabilitation clinics, 49.1% of the ratings were written by women (38.5% by men; 12.4% not assignable). Sociodemographic information on Klinikbewertungen.de was based solely on the status of the insured (89.1% of those with statutory insurance). Overall, 95.4% of the reviews were written by patients and 4.0% by relatives, with 77.5% of patients recommending the clinic to other users (relatives: 37.2%). Most patient ratings were positive. However, there were differences in overall satisfaction between the indication groups. Patients in oncology (77.9%) were more satisfied than those in neurology (59.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Online ratings of inpatient medical rehabilitation were collected to a considerable extent. These were mostly positive. The results are comparable to standardized surveys. Despite restrictions in the use of social media data, the results indicated that the publicly available real-time online feedback from patients can provide useful information for the quality management of clinics as well as for patients in exercising their right to choose a rehabilitation clinic.

[Positive association between successful rehabilitation and patient hospital ratings: Experience reports of patients in rehabilitation on a hospital rating and review site]. / Klinik-Weiterempfehlung bei Reha-Erfolg: Erfahrungsberichte von Rehabilitanden auf einer Klinik-Bewertungsplattform.

INTRODUCTION: Feedback from patients about aspects of rehabilitation services is increasingly provided online, for example, on specialized hospital comparison websites. Therefore, we examined which kind of online statements from rehabilitation patients published on the leading hospital comparison website "Klinikbewertungen.de" (KB) is associated with a positive recommendation of a rehabilitation clinic and which negative aspects are associated with a non-recommendation. METHODS: For eight indication groups stratified online statements of rehabilitants at KB were evaluated qualitatively using content analysis. The relationship between positive (negative) statements and the (non-) recommendation was examined. RESULTS: Content analysis of 911 experience reports revealed 20 categories. Most often, it was the "rehabilitation success" perceived by rehabilitation patients that was significantly associated with a recommendation or a non-recommendation of a hospital, and in five quality assurance (QA) comparison groups the category "catering" was associated with a positive or negative recommendation. In all QS comparison groups, there was an association with at least one of the following process-oriented rehabilitation categories: "rehabilitation measures", "rehabilitation plan and rehabilitation goals" and / or "diagnosis to discharge". DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Patient experiences with the perceived "rehabilitation success" and with the central processes of rehabilitation are particularly important for the recommendation or non-recommendation of a hospital for patients in all eight indication groups. On the basis of these results, rehabilitation hospitals can specifically identify the aspects of care that are important when patients recommend a hospital for rehabilitation. Online narratives of patients provide additional insights into the reasons for patients' satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their rehabilitation. These narratives are available to potential rehabilitation patients as a low-threshold source of information and decision-making aid.