• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

通过谷歌评论评估养老院的护理质量和虐待老人情况。

Assessing Quality of Care and Elder Abuse in Nursing Homes via Google Reviews.

作者信息

Mowery Jared, Andrei Amanda, Le Elizabeth, Jian Jing, Ward Megan

机构信息

The MITRE Corporation.

出版信息

Online J Public Health Inform. 2016 Dec 28;8(3):e201. doi: 10.5210/ojphi.v8i3.6906. eCollection 2016.

DOI:10.5210/ojphi.v8i3.6906
PMID:28210422
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5302464/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

It is challenging to assess the quality of care and detect elder abuse in nursing homes, since patients may be incapable of reporting quality issues or abuse themselves, and resources for sending inspectors are limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study correlates Google reviews of nursing homes with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) inspection results in the Nursing Home Compare (NHC) data set, to quantify the extent to which the reviews reflect the quality of care and the presence of elder abuse.

METHODS

A total of 16,160 reviews were collected, spanning 7,170 nursing homes. Two approaches were tested: using the average rating as an overall estimate of the quality of care at a nursing home, and using the average scores from a maximum entropy classifier trained to recognize indications of elder abuse.

RESULTS

The classifier achieved an F-measure of 0.81, with precision 0.74 and recall 0.89. The correlation for the classifier is weak but statistically significant: = 0.13, .001, and 95% confidence interval (0.10, 0.16). The correlation for the ratings exhibits a slightly higher correlation: = 0.15, .001. Both the classifier and rating correlations approach approximately 0.65 when the effective average number of reviews per provider is increased by aggregating similar providers.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that an analysis of Google reviews of nursing homes can be used to detect indications of elder abuse with high precision and to assess the quality of care, but only when a sufficient number of reviews are available.

摘要

背景

评估养老院的护理质量并发现虐待老人的情况具有挑战性,因为患者可能无法自行报告质量问题或虐待行为,而且派遣检查员的资源有限。

目的

本研究将谷歌上对养老院的评价与医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)在“养老院比较”(NHC)数据集中的检查结果相关联,以量化这些评价反映护理质量和虐待老人情况的程度。

方法

共收集了16160条评价,涵盖7170家养老院。测试了两种方法:使用平均评分作为对养老院护理质量的总体估计,以及使用经过训练以识别虐待老人迹象的最大熵分类器的平均分数。

结果

该分类器的F值为0.81,精确率为0.74,召回率为0.89。分类器的相关性较弱但具有统计学意义:r = 0.13,p <.001,95%置信区间为(0.10,0.16)。评分的相关性略高:r = 0.15,p <.001。当通过汇总类似的养老院增加每个养老院的有效平均评价数量时,分类器和评分的相关性都接近0.65。

结论

这些结果表明,对养老院谷歌评价的分析可用于高精度地检测虐待老人的迹象并评估护理质量,但前提是要有足够数量的评价。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f43/5302464/c813dab74eb8/ojphi-08-e201-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f43/5302464/77a1218604e3/ojphi-08-e201-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f43/5302464/214128df0536/ojphi-08-e201-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f43/5302464/fd81391ab594/ojphi-08-e201-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f43/5302464/e362ce0a7eb8/ojphi-08-e201-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f43/5302464/73e9060d9544/ojphi-08-e201-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f43/5302464/c813dab74eb8/ojphi-08-e201-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f43/5302464/77a1218604e3/ojphi-08-e201-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f43/5302464/214128df0536/ojphi-08-e201-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f43/5302464/fd81391ab594/ojphi-08-e201-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f43/5302464/e362ce0a7eb8/ojphi-08-e201-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f43/5302464/73e9060d9544/ojphi-08-e201-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f43/5302464/c813dab74eb8/ojphi-08-e201-g006.jpg

相似文献

1
Assessing Quality of Care and Elder Abuse in Nursing Homes via Google Reviews.通过谷歌评论评估养老院的护理质量和虐待老人情况。
Online J Public Health Inform. 2016 Dec 28;8(3):e201. doi: 10.5210/ojphi.v8i3.6906. eCollection 2016.
2
Social media ratings of nursing homes associated with experience of care and "Nursing Home Compare" quality measures.与护理体验及“疗养院比较”质量指标相关的疗养院社交媒体评级
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Apr 27;19(1):260. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4100-7.
3
Socioeconomic and Geographic Disparities in Accessing Nursing Homes With High Star Ratings.高星级养老院入住机会的社会经济和地理差异。
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018 Oct;19(10):852-859.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.05.017. Epub 2018 Jul 5.
4
Comparing Public Quality Ratings for Accredited and Nonaccredited Nursing Homes.比较经认证和未经认证的疗养院的公共质量评级。
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Jan;18(1):24-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2016.07.025. Epub 2016 Sep 3.
5
Ratings game: an analysis of Nursing Home Compare and Yelp ratings.评级游戏:对养老院比较和 Yelp 评级的分析。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Aug;27(8):619-624. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007301. Epub 2017 Nov 13.
6
Elder Abuse in Nursing Homes: Do Special Care Units Make a Difference? A Secondary Data Analysis of the Swiss Nursing Homes Human Resources Project.养老院中的虐待老人现象:特殊护理单元有作用吗?瑞士养老院人力资源项目的二次数据分析
Gerontology. 2017;63(2):169-179. doi: 10.1159/000450787. Epub 2016 Oct 22.
7
Nursing home quality: a comparative analysis using CMS Nursing Home Compare data to examine differences between rural and nonrural facilities.养老院质量:利用 CMS 养老院比较数据进行的比较分析,以检查农村和非农村设施之间的差异。
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013 Aug;14(8):593-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.02.017. Epub 2013 Apr 9.
8
Evaluation of nationally mandated drug use reviews to improve patient safety in nursing homes: a natural experiment.评估全国性强制药物使用审查以改善养老院患者安全:一项自然实验。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Jun;53(6):991-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53314.x.
9
Elder abuse and its impact on quality of life in nursing homes in China.中国养老院中的虐待老人问题及其对生活质量的影响。
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2018 Sep-Oct;78:155-159. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2018.06.011. Epub 2018 Jun 22.
10
Use Of Nursing Home Compare Website Appears Limited By Lack Of Awareness And Initial Mistrust Of The Data.养老院比较网站的使用似乎因对数据缺乏认知和最初的不信任而受到限制。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Apr;35(4):706-13. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1377.

引用本文的文献

1
British Columbia community pharmacy during COVID-19: Describing the patient experience via Google reviews.新冠疫情期间不列颠哥伦比亚省的社区药房:通过谷歌评论描述患者体验
Can Pharm J (Ott). 2024 Oct 30;158(1):24-28. doi: 10.1177/17151635241281749. eCollection 2025 Jan-Feb.
2
Patients' Awareness, Usage and Impact of Hospital Report Cards in the US.美国患者对医院报告卡的认知、使用和影响。
Patient. 2017 Dec;10(6):729-738. doi: 10.1007/s40271-017-0243-y.

本文引用的文献

1
When Patients Customize Nursing Home Ratings, Choices And Rankings Differ From The Government's Version.当患者自定义养老院评级时,选择和排名与政府版本不同。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Apr;35(4):714-9. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1340.
2
Use Of Nursing Home Compare Website Appears Limited By Lack Of Awareness And Initial Mistrust Of The Data.养老院比较网站的使用似乎因对数据缺乏认知和最初的不信任而受到限制。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Apr;35(4):706-13. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1377.
3
Yelp Reviews Of Hospital Care Can Supplement And Inform Traditional Surveys Of The Patient Experience Of Care.
Yelp上对医院护理的评价可以补充并为传统的患者护理体验调查提供信息。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Apr;35(4):697-705. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1030.
4
Provider attributes correlation analysis to their referral frequency and awards.提供者属性与他们的转诊频率和奖励之间的相关性分析。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Mar 14;16:90. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1338-1.
5
Measuring patient-perceived quality of care in US hospitals using Twitter.利用推特衡量美国医院患者感知的医疗质量。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Jun;25(6):404-13. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004309. Epub 2015 Oct 13.
6
Popularity of internet physician rating sites and their apparent influence on patients' choices of physicians.互联网医生评级网站的受欢迎程度及其对患者选择医生的明显影响。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Sep 26;15:416. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-1099-2.
7
A cross-sectional study assessing the association between online ratings and structural and quality of care measures: results from two German physician rating websites.一项横断面研究,评估在线评分与医疗结构及质量指标之间的关联:来自两个德国医生评分网站的结果。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Sep 24;15:414. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-1051-5.
8
What do patients say about emergency departments in online reviews? A qualitative study.患者在在线评论中如何评价急诊科?一项定性研究。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Jan;25(1):14-24. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004035. Epub 2015 Jul 24.
9
Collecting and Analyzing Patient Experiences of Health Care From Social Media.从社交媒体收集和分析患者的医疗保健体验。
JMIR Res Protoc. 2015 Jul 2;4(3):e78. doi: 10.2196/resprot.3433.
10
Insights into the impact of online physician reviews on patients' decision making: randomized experiment.在线医生评价对患者决策影响的洞察:随机试验
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Apr 9;17(4):e93. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3991.