This got me thinking: Is there something to those online sites that allow patients to review doctors? Do these sites allow real insight or simply provide a forum for those who indiscriminately want to rail on their doctor? I don’t know, but if you look at what people write about their doctors you’ll see marked polarity. There are those who believe their docs walk on water and those with real contempt. Pick what you like.
I retweeted @Pediartricinc’s comments and got back this:
Perhaps it’s important. After all, patients are driven to report for a reason. But unfortunately the real issues that motivate one to come forward are often difficult to discern.
Beyond the crude litmus of popularity, I question the value of physician rating sites in offering actionable information. But the market never lies, the crowd is usually right, and the capacity of such sites to make a difference will be proven over time. In my world I don’t see people making healthcare decisions based on angry narrative. Perhaps it’s coming.
I do find it interesting and worrisome that rating sites represent a threat to some physicians. I have heard stories of medical practices mandating patient disclaimers that prohibit online commentary. And there was the story of the dentist who sued over comments about his practice.
Crazy.
While I don’t believe patient review sites should drive health decisions, medical professionals shouldn’t shun public review. Every patient encounter should be treated as one that will be recounted by the patient. We should strive to have great stories written about the way we work. While there will always be rogue commentary, excellent care and stellar service will overshadow the outliers.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
The current health care system begs for complaints and right now doctors are the targets. This is really a form of legalized slander and that's my beef. Until this sort of practice is more regulated, I'm against it.
I’ve given doctor’s rating sites a lot of thought too. I have several issues with them, but if I had to pick my number one, I would have to say that I don’t think people get an accurate picture of a doctor’s clinical abilities, experience, education or knowledge.
In my mind, this is the reason one would visit a rating site in the first place. After all, you want to known if the doctor you're going to visit is a “competent” doctor.
The question is what defines “competence” in the patient’s mind and how does the rating site frame the results of the evaluation.
Does competence for the user mean: a doctor with first-class bedside manner? No long waits or quick appointment time? Convenient parking, fast service or zero insurance billing issues? Or does competence to them mean excellent clinical abilities? Ideally, we want it all, right? But how do we know which one of these the doctor is really being rated on?
A more important question is, do people understand the difference when they read a review?
And I think there lies our apprehension.
@PediatricInc