Google star ratings of Canadian hospitals: a nationwide cross-sectional analysis.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Open Quality Pub Date : 2024-07-22 DOI:10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002713
Matthew P Tse, Irfan Dhalla, Dhruv Nayyar
{"title":"Google star ratings of Canadian hospitals: a nationwide cross-sectional analysis.","authors":"Matthew P Tse, Irfan Dhalla, Dhruv Nayyar","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Data on patients' self-reported hospital experience can help guide quality improvement. Traditional patient survey programmes are resource intensive, and results are not always publicly accessible. Unsolicited online hospital reviews are an alternative data source; however, the nature of online reviews for Canadian hospitals is unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional study of Canadian acute care hospitals with more than 10 Google Reviews during the 2018-2019 fiscal year. We characterised the volume and distribution of Google Reviews of Canadian hospitals, and assessed their correlation with hospital characteristics (teaching status, size, occupancy rate, length of stay, resource utilisation) and Canadian Patient Experience Survey on Inpatient Care (CPES-IC) scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>167 out of 523 (31.9%) acute care hospitals in Canada met the inclusion criteria. Among included hospitals, there was a total of 10 395 Google Reviews and a median of 35 reviews per hospital. The mean Google Star Rating for included hospitals was 2.85 out of 5, with a range of 1.36-4.57. Teaching hospitals had significantly higher mean Google Star Ratings compared with non-teaching hospitals (3.16 vs 2.81, p <0.01). There was a weak, positive correlation between hospitals' Google Star Ratings and CPES-IC 'Overall Hospital Experience' scores (p =0.04), but no significant correlation between Google Star Ratings and other hospital characteristics or subcategories of CPES-IC scores.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>There is significant interhospital variation in patients' self-reported care experiences at Canadian acute care hospitals. Online reviews can serve as a readily accessible source of real-time data for hospitals to monitor and improve the patient experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002713","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Data on patients' self-reported hospital experience can help guide quality improvement. Traditional patient survey programmes are resource intensive, and results are not always publicly accessible. Unsolicited online hospital reviews are an alternative data source; however, the nature of online reviews for Canadian hospitals is unknown.

Methods: We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional study of Canadian acute care hospitals with more than 10 Google Reviews during the 2018-2019 fiscal year. We characterised the volume and distribution of Google Reviews of Canadian hospitals, and assessed their correlation with hospital characteristics (teaching status, size, occupancy rate, length of stay, resource utilisation) and Canadian Patient Experience Survey on Inpatient Care (CPES-IC) scores.

Results: 167 out of 523 (31.9%) acute care hospitals in Canada met the inclusion criteria. Among included hospitals, there was a total of 10 395 Google Reviews and a median of 35 reviews per hospital. The mean Google Star Rating for included hospitals was 2.85 out of 5, with a range of 1.36-4.57. Teaching hospitals had significantly higher mean Google Star Ratings compared with non-teaching hospitals (3.16 vs 2.81, p <0.01). There was a weak, positive correlation between hospitals' Google Star Ratings and CPES-IC 'Overall Hospital Experience' scores (p =0.04), but no significant correlation between Google Star Ratings and other hospital characteristics or subcategories of CPES-IC scores.

Interpretation: There is significant interhospital variation in patients' self-reported care experiences at Canadian acute care hospitals. Online reviews can serve as a readily accessible source of real-time data for hospitals to monitor and improve the patient experience.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加拿大医院的谷歌星级评定:全国横断面分析。
背景:患者自我报告的医院体验数据有助于指导质量改进。传统的患者调查项目需要耗费大量资源,而且调查结果并不总是向公众开放。主动提供的在线医院评价是另一种数据来源;然而,加拿大医院在线评价的性质尚不清楚:我们在全国范围内对 2018-2019 财年谷歌评论超过 10 条的加拿大急症护理医院进行了横断面研究。我们描述了加拿大医院谷歌评论的数量和分布情况,并评估了它们与医院特征(教学状态、规模、入住率、住院时间、资源利用率)和加拿大住院患者体验调查(CPES-IC)评分的相关性:加拿大 523 家急症护理医院中有 167 家(31.9%)符合纳入标准。在纳入的医院中,共有 10 395 条谷歌评论,每家医院的评论中位数为 35 条。纳入医院的平均谷歌星级评价为 2.85(满分 5 分),范围为 1.36-4.57。与非教学医院相比,教学医院的平均谷歌星级评分明显更高(3.16 vs 2.81,p 解释:在加拿大急症护理医院,患者自我报告的护理体验在医院间存在很大差异。在线评论可作为医院监测和改善患者就医体验的一个易于获取的实时数据来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Achieving and sustaining reduction in hospital-acquired complications in an Australian local health service. Click and learn: a longitudinal interprofessional case-based sepsis education curriculum. Increasing the uptake of advance care directives through staff education and one-on-one support for people facing end-of-life. Community breast pain clinics can provide safe, quality care for women presenting with breast pain. Implementing a multisite shared haemodialysis care programme.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1