An Online Review of Plastic Surgeons in Southern California

Goals/Purpose: It has become fairly commonplace for patients to access online reviews of physicians and hospitals when making choices about healthcare, just as any consumer would in today's computer-dependent world. Previous studies have shown that online reviews of physicians are generally positive and that the average numbers of reviews are relatively low. However, the impact of one negative review has the potential to adversely affect future business and reputation.  Our objective was to characterize the online reputation of plastic surgeons in Southern California as portrayed in physician rating websites (PRWs).

Methods/Technique: Using the “Find a Surgeon” search feature on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons website PlasticSurgery.org, a list of board-certified plastic surgeons within a 50-mile radius of Pomona, CA was generated. The postal code 91768 was arbitrarily chosen as a search point with a radius that reached Loma Linda as well as high-density cities such as Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, and Newport Beach.  In order to select the PRWs for inclusion, a sample of eight surgeons were searched on 10 PRWs: DrScore.com, Healthgrades.com, insiderpages.com, RateMDs.com, RealSelf.com, SuggestADoctor.com, thedochelps.com, UCompareHealthCare.com, Vitals.com, and Yelp.  The three PRWs with the most results were selected:  HealthGrades.com, Vitals.com, and UCompareHealthcare.com  The search yielded 263 surgeons.  The number of ratings(votes), as well as the average rating (“stars”) were recorded.  The data were then analyzed and the surgeons ranked by number of reviews and by average number of stars awarded as well as city and gender.

Results/Complications: 229 (87.1%) male and 34 (12.9%) female surgeons were evaluated. The most-represented cities were Beverly Hills (N=47), Los Angeles (N=31), and Newport Beach (N=27).  97% of surgeons were rated on at least one of the three PRWs chosen.  Surgeons were in general rated highly, with an average rating of 86% and standard deviation of 14% (p<0.01) and an average of 11.0 ratings for each surgeon per PRW and standard deviation of 10.9 (p<0.01).  Total online ratings from all 3 PRWs ranged from 0 to 222 per surgeon. The median number of total reviews was 25 and the average rating for those surgeons above and below the median were equivocal, at 86% and 85%, respectively (p=0.284). There was no difference between average rating of female and male surgeons.  The individual with the lowest rating (20%) had only 3 total reviews. The number of plastic surgeons per city had no bearing on the average number of reviews (R²= 0.0155) or average rating (R² = 0.0087).

Conclusion: In this study we found that the vast majority of plastic surgeons do have an online presence that can be significantly influenced by their patient population. Overall the ratings were high, regardless of the number of reviews, though it can be postulated that a physician with fewer reviews runs the risk of a lower average rating. Plastic surgeons should be aware that they are likely to be rated online and should be conscious of their online reputations.