An examination of negative one-star patient reviews for foot and ankle orthopedic surgery: A retrospective analysis

Despite the questionable validity of online-based physician review websites (PRWs), negative reviews can adversely affect a provider's practice. Several investigations have explored the effect of extremely negative “one-star” reviews across subspecialties such as adult reconstruction, sports medicine, and orthopaedic traumatology; however, to date, no study has explored one-star reviews in foot and ankle surgery. The goal of this study was to characterize factors that contribute to extremely negative, one-star reviews for foot and ankle surgeons on Vitals.com. A retrospective analysis of negative one-star reviews with corresponding patient complaints for foot and ankle surgeons (both orthopaedic surgeons as well as podiatrists) in the United States. Physicians included were selected within a 10-mile radius of the top ten largest cities in the United States. Data was stratified by patient type (e.g., those receiving surgery and those not undergoing surgical intervention) and binned according to type of patient complaint, as previously described. Of the 2645 foot and ankle surgeons identified in our initial query, 13.8% of surgeons contained one-star reviews eligible for analysis. Patient complaints related to bedside manner and patient experience are the causative factors accounting for 41.5% of the one-star reviews of foot and ankle surgeons for nonsurgical-related complaints. Surgical complications and other outcomes-related factors comprised roughly 50% of the complaints related to surgical patients. In conclusion, complaints related to bedside manner and patient experience are the causative factors accounting for 41.5% of the one-star reviews of foot and ankle surgeons for nonsurgical-related complaints. Surgical complications and other outcomes-related factors comprised roughly half of the complaints related to surgery. This data serves to inform practicing foot and ankle surgeons as to the influences behind patients leaving extremely negative reviews on PRWs. IV