For Residents

Online Patient-Reported Reviews of Mohs Micrographic Surgery: Qualitative Analysis of Positive and Negative Experiences

In Partnership With Cosmetic Surgery Forum

Author and Disclosure Information

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is the gold standard for treating high-risk skin cancers and skin cancers in areas where skin sparing is essential. However, relatively little is known about patient-reported satisfaction with this procedure. In this study, we used qualitative research methods to determine themes of patient-reported satisfaction and dissatisfaction with MMS on one popular online resource (RealSelf). Real-world patient feedback provides an opportunity for physicians to explore the patient mind-set and to target areas of potential improvement in MMS patient satisfaction.

Resident Pearl
Patients are posting reviews online now more than ever regarding their experiences with dermatologic surgical procedures. Mohs micrographic surgery is rated highly by patients but suspect to missing information and a higher than expected attribution of the procedure to plastic surgeons.


 

References

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) remains the gold standard for the removal of skin cancers in high-risk areas of the body while offering an excellent safety profile and sparing tissue.1 In the current health care environment, online patient reviews have grown in popularity and influence. More than 60% of consumers consult social media before making health care decisions.2 A recent analysis of online patient reviews of general dermatology practices demonstrated the perceived importance of physician empathy, thoroughness, and cognizance of cost in relation to patient-reported satisfaction.3 Because MMS is a well-recognized and unique outpatient-based surgical procedure, a review and analysis of online patient reviews specific to MMS can provide useful practice insights.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted using an online platform (RealSelf [http://www.realself.com]) that connects patients and providers offering aesthetically oriented procedures; the site has 35 million unique visitors yearly.4 The community’s directory was used to identify and analyze all cumulative patient reviews from 2006 to December 20, 2015, using the search terms Mohs surgery or Mohs micrographic surgery. The study was exempt by the Northwestern University (Chicago, Illinois) institutional review board.

A standardized qualitative coding methodology was created and applied to all available comments regarding MMS. A broad list of positive and negative patient experiences was first created and agreed upon by all 3 investigators. Each individual comment was then attributed to 1 or more of these positive or negative themes. Of these comments, 10% were coded by 2 investigators (S.X. and Z.A.) to ensure internal validity; 1 investigator coded the remaining statements by patients (Z.A.). Patient-reported satisfaction ratings categorized as “worth it” or “not worth it” (as used by RealSelf to describe the patient-perceived value and utility of a given procedure) as well as cost of MMS were gathered. Cumulative patient ratings were collected for the procedure overall, physician’s bedside manner, answered questions, aftercare follow-up, time spent with patients, telephone/email responsiveness, staff professionalism/courtesy, payment process, and wait times. Patient-reported characteristics of MMS also were evaluated including physician specialty, lesion location, type of skin cancer, and type of closure. For lesion location, we graded whether the location represented a high-risk area as defined by the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, and American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.5

Results

A total of 219 reviews related to MMS were collected as of December 20, 2015. Overall, MMS was considered “worth it” by 89% of patients (Table 1). Only 2% of patients described MMS as “not worth it.” There was a wide range reported for the cost of the procedure ($1–$100,000 [median, $1800]). Of those patients who reported their sex, females were 2.5-times more likely to post a review compared to males (51% vs 20%); however, 30% of reviewers did not report their sex. The mean (standard deviation) overall satisfaction rating was 4.8 (0.8). With regard to category-specific ratings (eg, bedside manner, aftercare follow-up, time spent with patients), the mean scores were all 4.7 or greater (Table 2).

Regarding the surgical aspects of the procedure, the majority of patients reported that the excision of the lesion was performed by a dermatologist (62%). However, a notable portion of patients reported that the excision was performed by a plastic surgeon (21%). Physician specialty was not reported in 16% of the reviews. For the lesion closure, the patient-reported specialty of the physician was only slightly higher for dermatologists versus plastic surgeons (46% vs 44%)(Table 3).

Pages

Next Article: