Doctors are preoccupied with consumer review sites and the potential for bad press. Often the first impulse is to put the law on your side. Consider, for example, Dr. Kimberly Henry, cosmetic surgeon who last year initiated legal action against at least 12 reviewers from sites such as Yelp.com and DoctorScorecard.com.
While she may feel some sense of satisfaction in her quest for justice, I’m guessing many read the reviews to see what the fuss is all about.
Actions like these reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of modern reputation management. Physicians who react against patient dialog should understand the Streisand Effect. The Streisand Effect is an online phenomenon in which the attempt to remove or hide information is met with the unintended consequence of greater attention.
Instead of a prohibitive, reactive position against patient comments, doctors should consider a preemptive, proactive approach to dialog. Andy Sernovitz had it right when he suggested, ‘the solution to pollution is dilution.’ Work for good ink. It’s hard to get worked up about 10 poor reviews when you have 350 great reviews.
When physicians take action against patient reviews or even work to prevent reviews they raise a glaring red flag. We’re unlikely to win the battle against public dialog.
{ 2 comments }
Excellent observations, and something that should be taken to heart by providers of all sorts. This “new medium” is no longer so new. Yet many still fear it and are too quick to take a defensive stance. Granted, there will always be those who are unhappy with their provider, and the difference today is that it’s so much easier for people to share their healthcare experience … with friends and strangers alike.
Consequently, online reputation management is, in fact, important. And actively engaging in the online sphere and purposefully establishing one’s web presence makes good business sense.
But it doesn’t require being tech savvy to “be a hit” on the provider rating sites. As a matter of fact, the most important steps in the process start with the comparatively low-tech face-to-face meeting between provider and patient. And, just like it’s always been, if the provider is good at the service they deliver, makes an effort to communicate well with their patients, and relates to their patients like “people” rather than “cases”, response will generally be positive.
In that light, seems like all the online sharing is an opportunity for the provider, doesn’t it?
The medium may be new, but the same old rules of diplomacy and interpersonal relations still apply. To me it sounds like Dr. Henry’s problem had more to do with common sense and interpersonal skills, than with the fact that this tiff took place online.
I’m just finishing up my M1 year, and I am pretty sure my school (& most of the affiliated hospitals) lacks a clear and prominent social media policy. These issues are not addressed in our classes (ethics, clinical med, etc.). We grew up with Facebook and Twitter, which are going to be vital tools of our trade really soon.
Speaking of prohibitive & reactive, I read about the “placenta incident” which was all over the blogs in January. I don’t think the nursing student deserved expulsion.
Much of all this is preventable if only institutions took a pro-active stance toward social media and educate their staff/students regarding what’s acceptable, what’s not, and why not.
Dr. V, hope you don’t mind I’ve referenced this post on my site.