How ratings are calculated

• Only reviews from physicians whose identity was verified and whose work relationship with that agency was verified.
• Every review is read and manually approved before publication. Agencies cannot approve, delay or veto it.
• Reviews with unsupported work evidence, such as a contract with no sign of completed work, are not scored.

A physician’s influence on an agency’s score is balanced so that one person cannot dominate it by posting repeatedly. Contributions are counted per distinct physician, and eligibility and contribution limits are enforced in the database, not only in the interface. Contributions are also limited over a rolling 12-month period.

• Current uses work from the last 24 months and is the period used for ranking.
• All time includes every published review, for broader context. It is not used to order the default directory.
• Public pages show work as a year only, never an exact date.

The observed average is the straightforward mean of overall star ratings from distinct physicians. It is what we show as the headline rating.

The ranking score is used only to order agencies. It is a Bayesian adjusted score: with a prior weight of 10, agencies with few reviews are pulled toward the overall average so that two glowing reviews don’t outrank a large, consistent record. An agency is ranked only when it has at least 5 distinct physicians in the current window. Below that it is marked “Limited data”, stays searchable, and appears after ranked agencies.

An agency with no reviews has no score at all. It is never shown as zero.

Each review records whether the physician would work with the agency again: yes, no or unsure. The percentage is yes divided by yes plus no; “unsure” answers are shown as counts but not included in the percentage.

Each metric has written anchors describing what a 1 and a 5 look like, so ratings mean similar things across reviewers. Physicians may answer “not applicable” or “insufficient experience” rather than guess. Those answers are excluded from that metric’s average and denominator.

1. Communication and responsiveness

   Did the agency respond reliably before and during the assignment, and provide emergency support when you needed it?

   1:

   Rarely responded; no usable emergency support.

   5:

   Consistently responsive before and during work, including emergencies.

2. Pay competitiveness and transparency

   Were the agreed rate and deductions clearly explained, was the agreement honored, and was negotiation handled transparently? (This is about clarity and honesty, not about the agency margin or rates other physicians received.)

   1:

   Rate or deductions were unclear or changed without agreement.

   5:

   Rate and deductions were fully explained, honored, and negotiation was transparent.

3. Payment timeliness and accuracy

   Did payments match approved time and arrive by the contractual due date?

   1:

   Payments were routinely late or wrong.

   5:

   Consistently accurate and on or before the due date.

4. Scheduling flexibility

   How well did the agency handle scheduling, minimum commitments, leave changes and your availability?

   1:

   Inflexible; availability was ignored.

   5:

   Consistently flexible and responsive to availability and changes.

5. Credentialing and onboarding

   Was credentialing well supported, without duplicated paperwork, errors or delays within the agency's control?

   1:

   Disorganized; repeated errors and delays caused by the agency.

   5:

   Well organized and supportive; no avoidable delays.

6. Contract fairness and cancellations

   How fair were cancellation notice, guaranteed hours, penalties and other contract terms, and were promised protections honored? (This is an experience rating, not a legal opinion.)

   1:

   Terms were one-sided or promised protections were not honored.

   5:

   Clearly fair terms, explained and honored, including cancellations.

7. Travel and reimbursement

   Separately consider booking quality and whether reimbursements arrived by the promised deadlines.

   1:

   Poor bookings and reimbursements routinely late or missing.

   5:

   Consistently good bookings and reimbursement by the promised deadlines.

8. Malpractice and tail clarity

   Did the agency explain the policy type, limits, insurer, tail responsibility and coverage for you and any relevant entity? (This rates clarity and experience, not whether coverage was sufficient.)

   1:

   Coverage and tail terms were not explained.

   5:

   Policy type, limits, insurer and tail responsibility were all clearly explained.

9. Advocacy and problem resolution

   Did the agency help resolve pay, scheduling and assignment problems when they came up?

   1:

   Did not help or made problems worse.

   5:

   Consistently advocated for you and resolved problems promptly.

10. Assignment accuracy

    Did the specialty, duties, schedule, workload description and support match what the agency represented?

    1:

    The assignment differed materially from what was represented.

    5:

    Matched the agency's representations consistently.

• Ratings summarize individual, subjective experiences. Small counts are noisy.
• Specialty and region views can have very few physicians. We show counts so you can judge.
• Agencies may reply to reviews; replies are moderated and never change the rating.
• Disputes open a review case. A disputed review stays visible, marked as disputed, unless it breaks content rules.
• There are no paid placements and no agency can buy or remove a rating.

Private pay information that physicians may optionally submit is kept private and is not used in public ratings. Compensation aggregates are not published in this beta.