It seems some doctors want to keep their patients quiet. Some practices have imposed mandatory gag orders that prevent patients from posting commentary on rating sites like Yelp or Angie’s List.
This is insane. Let the patients speak.
The suggestion that you can control public dialog reflects an embarrassing misunderstanding of the how the world shares information. These gag orders showcase how desperately disconnected some corners of the medical community have become.
Can you imagine if the purchase of a pair of shoes at Nordstrom was contingent on the completion of a nondisclosure?
Physicians should encourage dialog. How about we work to assure that our level of service and care is so extraordinary that the conversation is largely positive? And there will always be unsatisfied customers. But the mob is pretty smart. If, however, public criticism is valid and widely accepted, you got some explainin’ to do.
Physicians also need be proactive in the creation of searchable content that references their name or practice. Rather than seeing ourselves as potential victims of what others might say, we should be creating our own story with phenomenal content and dialog. The good will dilute the less-than-flattering.
{ 8 comments }
A gag order may be an over reaction because the sites haven’t become that popular with patients yet. Say some other experts.
“Experts Weigh In on Why Few Patients Use Hospital and Physician Rating Websites”
The panel say that patients tend to rely on recommendations from their doctors or family members and the data provided on review sites can be confusing and irrelevant to patients.
http://bit.ly/99jvh1
Not relevant. Agreed. Although there are those who take any criticism as an assault. They don’t understand how irrelevant these review sites really are.
Dr V,
Interesting question!
If a doctor prescribes a medication or treatment will they check back on the patient to see if it’s working or ask them how they feel? If the treatment isn’t working or having side effects with they make changes? Obviously they do and they continue to do what they can to help the patient get better. This is what doctors refer to as a “Positive Outcome”, but it’s possible to have a positive outcome but a negative experience.
I work with hospitals, doctors and healthcare organizations to help them build strategies to engage patients and become active participants in collaboration. In most cases this is using the internet or mobile applications, but it doesn’t really matter.
Generally, the first objections that healthcare professionals or executives is the fear that patients might get online and say something bad about them or the hospital. Funny, because a quick trip to the waiting room and they would get an earful from patients and families.
The truth is simple! Patients and families are already saying bad and good things about the doctors, nurses, staff and facilities that provide healthcare services. The difference is that most are not engaged in the conversations and are passive not active participants in the collaboration.
Doctors and hospitals that learn how to engage patients and become active participants in patient collaboration build consistent performance excellence and drive higher rates of patient retention.
From a business perspective, any organization that doesn’t encourage discourse with its customers is missing out on an opportunity to build sustained competitive advantage.
I agree with you 100% Bryan! Sometimes, as a physician in academic medicine, I wish that the patient voice was really the only thing that mattered. Sadly, the academic medical world is much more complicated than this and in ways that I don’t really fully understand.
Wow, I agree with you! Patients should be able to give feedback and warn others or rave online. I really doubt that there are too many people who read them/put a lot of stock in them, so I can’t see how a couple of negative reviews could “severely damage physician’s practice” as the article claims. If there were an overwhelming number of bad reviews, maybe the practice *should* be ruined! I would imagine that it could be more of a tool to doctors to consider the opinions of their patients.
You are right about the naivety of doctors who rely on this sort of legal shield. I suspect their lawyers are equally naive as well. In reading the original AP story, John Swapceinski, co-founder of RateMDs.com, was quoted as stating, “They’re basically forcing the patients to choose between health care and their First Amendment rights, and I really find that repulsive.” He’s right and if this were challenged in a court of law, I doubt these waivers would stand. There is no broad social policy that such contracts would benefit. A doctor’s embarrassment is insufficient to quell a person’s first amendment right. There are plenty of protections against liable already available if the speech unlawfully encroached on the doctor’s reputation. This is a class action suit waiting to happen against Medical Justice, the company Dr. Segal owns.
I agree that forcing patients to waive their right to free speech would never hold up in court. And what does it say about a doctor who asks a patient to sign such an agreement? How could one enforce it anyway since the reviews are anonymous? But here’s a different take on the subject of patients reviewing doctors on line. http://tiny.cc/sx83z
Absolutely!
Gag orders are insane. And senseless. Who we think we are as docs and who are patients experience us to be, may be divergent. It’s good to get a sense from our patients of what is working to improve their care and what isn’t. Doctors never know all the answers…
In the era of “transparency” in medicine, we must keep it spherical–inclusive and going in all directions…
{ 3 trackbacks }