2572 - Radiation Oncology Physician Portrayals: Characterizing Online Representations of NCCN Member Institutions

Purpose/Objective(s): Nationally representative studies have demonstrated increasing use of websites and physician ratings for awareness and selection of care. Little is known about how radiation oncologists (ROs) are perceived by the public, as practice diversity can pose a challenge for assessment. We hypothesize that within the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), a codified cancer center alliance, there exists significant heterogeneity in portrayals of radiation oncologists from established patient-centric standards.

Materials/Methods: We compiled and reviewed NCCN departmental websites, along with their respective faculty descriptions. Literature review identified highly cited publications of descriptive and qualitative factors identified in patient surveys regarding physician appraisal and selection. Quantitative metrics were generated with respect to public awareness, perception, ratings and selection of physicians through online sources. Data was cross verified by the authors.

Results: All member institutions (n=33) had comprehensive websites, including departmental summaries and physician profiles. The majority of NCCN departments had individual physician ratings (72.7%); of these institutions, each RO department reviewed a mean of 62.9% (range: 0 - 88.3%; IQR 30.9%) of its physicians. Similarly, the majority had video with staff featured (72.7%); of these institutions, each RO department had a mean of 8.7 videos (range: 1 - 43, IQR: 6). Accepted insurance details were not uniformly present (54.5%), nor were profiles regarding physicists (66.7%) or advanced practice providers (82%). All departments described their staff locations, educational background and mission. There were notably few departments with appreciable and explicit statements on clinical quality (12.1%) or patient safety (21.2%), as well as collaborative profiles between both the NCCN institution and the respective academic medical campus (51.5%).

Conclusion: The majority of current NCCN member institutions focus ROs’ profiles on ratings, location and training background, while few focus on other sought-after information, such as insurance and financial compatibility, clinical quality measures and patient safety programs. Further exploration into digital professional portrayal may allow for greater integration into the oncology ecosystem and innovations in improved messaging to patient perspectives.