LAUSR

209 Background: According to JAMA, Public Awareness, Perception, and Use of Online Physician Rating Sites; 35% of patients selected a physician based on good ratings, and 37% avoided one with bad ratings. Yet, there exists a stark difference between unstructured (i.e. Yelp) online reviews as compared to validated survey-generated data. A national network of hospitals that specializes in treating patients with complex cancer had been collecting patient satisfaction data using a validated tool administered by a 3rd party for some time. An electronic physician rating and review process was implemented as an adjunct to that survey process, providing a new mechanism for consumers visiting the networks’ website with accurate information about patients’ satisfaction with its oncologists. Methods: Physician ratings are obtained directly from patients who had an encounter using two specific questions regarding confidence and likelihood to recommend. Ratings are posted by physician and maintained on a 12-month rolling basis once a minimum of 30 ratings is achieved. Likert scale survey data are converted to a one-to-five star rating. De-identified verbatim comments are also posted. Criteria are in place to review comments prior to posting with limited exclusions, such as comments containing PHI or slanderous content. Physicians receive an email to review comments 15 days prior to posting, allowing a process for advance notice or appeal. Both positive and negative reviews are published. Results: Physician performance scores were 4.7 stars pre-launch compared to 4.8 stars post-launch. Additional performance statistics are provided below. Conclusions: Sharing information on the talent of physicians is an important component of transparency and arming patients with information to make informed treatment decisions. As a result, physicians have become more engaged with their data and utilizing reviews to identify improvement opportunities. This translates to a culture of accountability and deepened understanding of patients’ perceptions about care.[Table: see text]