Doctor Rating Websites - Read Them With a Grain of Salt
On a quarterly, if not monthly, basis we view stories on TV or in printed media of medical care gone awry.
Whether it's a surgeon walking out of the operating room to cash a check, a nurse cutting off a baby's finger removing bandages, or a pediatrician molesting his patients, there is no shortage of medical malpractice tragedies.
Coupled with America's fascination with criminal investigation TV dramas like NCIS and TV news magazines like 60 Minutes, there is a bonafide collective desire to read reviews of potential health care providers to try to ascertain who the irresponsible doctors are before we unknowingly make our way into their offices.
After all, when we shop on the Internet, we can read reviews of the products we're considering buying; what's wrong with wanting to have similar reviews of the doctors we're planning to see? There are several problems, and no doctor rating website I've found has yet been able to solve them.
First, the subject of the review is a person (doctor) and persons (staff) working in that office, not a product.
While at any given moment a doctor's office may be running behind in its schedule or a staff member may be having a bad day and sound curt on the phone, this first impression can hardly be considered robust data with which to evaluate a provider for the masses.
Once in front of the doctor, if a patient finds him/her to be emotionally distant or unhumorous with a poor bedside manner, it may be because of any number of reasons...
such as that individual was up late at night on call or perhaps rushed out of his/her house that morning, leaving crying children behind, to see patients at the hospital.
Many factors play into an initial experience with a human being as opposed to a first impression of a material object.
When this is used to fuel a negative online review of a doctor, it should ultimately be given a lower weighting of significance as compared to a patient who's seen a doctor over a number of visits and more thoroughly knows who that person is.
Yet, the doctor rating websites I've seen don't make this distinction.
Second, many of these doctor rating websites don't allow for easy, linkable access to primary source, objective information about a doctor...
for example, official state medical license verification, national board certification validation, or sanction information.
Some of the sites will provide this information second-hand, but they still highlight their patient reviews in a Web search to draw viewers.
Subjective reviews of doctors ignore the obvious - all doctors, even the ones found guilty of malpractice, sacrificed to achieve their position.
Professional school, residency training, and board certification require an immense commitment of not only time and money but also one's devotion.
The vast majority of doctors who have reached their profession genuinely take pride in their job, are required by state licensing rules to fulfill annual or bi-annual continuing education requirements, and are competent in their chosen field.
Like all human beings, they may make errors but learn from their mistakes, becoming better practitioners.
A snapshot in time of an individual's impression of an isolated interaction can hardly summarize the character of the provider in question - especially if that doctor is board-certified, holding a license in good standing.
Third, the very thing these doctor rating websites use to encourage reviews to be submitted on their pages is also their downfall...
anonymity.
On any number of these sites, a potential reviewer can look up a doctor and review him/her with simply the click of a mouse.
There is no need to create an account and register one's identity.
Thus, there can be no verification of the quality or validity of the reviews posted.
What is to say one angry patient can't write numerous anonymous, degrading reviews of a doctor, or vice versa one happy patient can't write a number of overinflated, positive ones? What's to say competing doctors can't negatively review each other or positively review themselves, all anonymously? Without a verified identity, the disincentive to provide false or misleading information is absent.
My recommendation for anyone seeking information on a doctor is, first and foremost, rely on word-of-mouth.
Some newer social media platforms offer the best potential on the Internet for accurate sharing of opinions of healthcare providers.
Because the reviewers are not anonymous and those reading the reviews are their friends or acquaintances, it is more likely that the reviewer will post useful feedback about a doctor, and someone reading the review can contact the reviewer for more information or clarification if needed.
Second, one can go to the state licensing board website and verify that the doctor he/she is considering has a valid state license with or without sanctions.
Finally, if one's medical condition is not emergent, he/she can visit more than one doctor in consultation and make one's own comparisons before ultimately choosing a provider.
I think I can safely say that we all want a doctor who will take the time to see us or our loved one as a person, and who will look to treat us with the same dedication as if we were a family member.
Finding a kind, trustworthy, and skilled doctor need not be a stressful endeavor.
But, take my advice and read doctor rating websites with a grain of salt.
Instead, rely on your own instincts, objective data sources, and opinions of those whom you trust to help you find the provider in whom you will ultimately entrust your care.
Whether it's a surgeon walking out of the operating room to cash a check, a nurse cutting off a baby's finger removing bandages, or a pediatrician molesting his patients, there is no shortage of medical malpractice tragedies.
Coupled with America's fascination with criminal investigation TV dramas like NCIS and TV news magazines like 60 Minutes, there is a bonafide collective desire to read reviews of potential health care providers to try to ascertain who the irresponsible doctors are before we unknowingly make our way into their offices.
After all, when we shop on the Internet, we can read reviews of the products we're considering buying; what's wrong with wanting to have similar reviews of the doctors we're planning to see? There are several problems, and no doctor rating website I've found has yet been able to solve them.
First, the subject of the review is a person (doctor) and persons (staff) working in that office, not a product.
While at any given moment a doctor's office may be running behind in its schedule or a staff member may be having a bad day and sound curt on the phone, this first impression can hardly be considered robust data with which to evaluate a provider for the masses.
Once in front of the doctor, if a patient finds him/her to be emotionally distant or unhumorous with a poor bedside manner, it may be because of any number of reasons...
such as that individual was up late at night on call or perhaps rushed out of his/her house that morning, leaving crying children behind, to see patients at the hospital.
Many factors play into an initial experience with a human being as opposed to a first impression of a material object.
When this is used to fuel a negative online review of a doctor, it should ultimately be given a lower weighting of significance as compared to a patient who's seen a doctor over a number of visits and more thoroughly knows who that person is.
Yet, the doctor rating websites I've seen don't make this distinction.
Second, many of these doctor rating websites don't allow for easy, linkable access to primary source, objective information about a doctor...
for example, official state medical license verification, national board certification validation, or sanction information.
Some of the sites will provide this information second-hand, but they still highlight their patient reviews in a Web search to draw viewers.
Subjective reviews of doctors ignore the obvious - all doctors, even the ones found guilty of malpractice, sacrificed to achieve their position.
Professional school, residency training, and board certification require an immense commitment of not only time and money but also one's devotion.
The vast majority of doctors who have reached their profession genuinely take pride in their job, are required by state licensing rules to fulfill annual or bi-annual continuing education requirements, and are competent in their chosen field.
Like all human beings, they may make errors but learn from their mistakes, becoming better practitioners.
A snapshot in time of an individual's impression of an isolated interaction can hardly summarize the character of the provider in question - especially if that doctor is board-certified, holding a license in good standing.
Third, the very thing these doctor rating websites use to encourage reviews to be submitted on their pages is also their downfall...
anonymity.
On any number of these sites, a potential reviewer can look up a doctor and review him/her with simply the click of a mouse.
There is no need to create an account and register one's identity.
Thus, there can be no verification of the quality or validity of the reviews posted.
What is to say one angry patient can't write numerous anonymous, degrading reviews of a doctor, or vice versa one happy patient can't write a number of overinflated, positive ones? What's to say competing doctors can't negatively review each other or positively review themselves, all anonymously? Without a verified identity, the disincentive to provide false or misleading information is absent.
My recommendation for anyone seeking information on a doctor is, first and foremost, rely on word-of-mouth.
Some newer social media platforms offer the best potential on the Internet for accurate sharing of opinions of healthcare providers.
Because the reviewers are not anonymous and those reading the reviews are their friends or acquaintances, it is more likely that the reviewer will post useful feedback about a doctor, and someone reading the review can contact the reviewer for more information or clarification if needed.
Second, one can go to the state licensing board website and verify that the doctor he/she is considering has a valid state license with or without sanctions.
Finally, if one's medical condition is not emergent, he/she can visit more than one doctor in consultation and make one's own comparisons before ultimately choosing a provider.
I think I can safely say that we all want a doctor who will take the time to see us or our loved one as a person, and who will look to treat us with the same dedication as if we were a family member.
Finding a kind, trustworthy, and skilled doctor need not be a stressful endeavor.
But, take my advice and read doctor rating websites with a grain of salt.
Instead, rely on your own instincts, objective data sources, and opinions of those whom you trust to help you find the provider in whom you will ultimately entrust your care.
Source...