Clearly I’m not the only one with this on my mind (and this back in 2006!):
I found this article in the The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon – yes, that’s in Canada ;-)
I found this article in the The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon – yes, that’s in Canada ;-)
Patients Rate Doctors on Website: Whether your doctor is a sweetheart with encyclopedic knowledge, or running an hour late with the bedside manner of a bull, there's now a way to let the world know.
“Because there are currently no objective tools available to grade doctors, says Swapceinski, co-founder of RateMDs.com, he believes his website is needed. While regulatory bodies (like the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan) exist to monitor doctor competence, there's no resource telling patients about bedside manner, waiting times or crusty office staff, he said.”
Snip-its that address the disadvantages:
“RateMDs.com isn't making fans out of the medical profession in Canada. The organization that provides Canadian physicians with malpractice insurance has already asked the site to remove potentially defamatory comments.”
“Maura Gillis-Cipywnyk, president of the Saskatchewan branch of the Consumers Association of Canada, said a disgruntled patient is also more likely to rant on the site than a satisfied customer is to sing a doctor's praises.”
“The site is a subjective tool, she said and since the comments are anonymous, no one is accountable for any inaccuracies.”
But then the issue remains that it is anonymous, not that anyone and everyone can comment online… Plus, the article argues that often other patients will jump to the defense of a doctor who has been misrepresented and even doctors themselves have a chance to respond and mark comments they feel are unfair with a red flag. RateMDs.com also has safeguards in place to help stop libelous or unfair comments; moderators remove two to three per cent of posts within 24 hours because they contain serious and unproved allegations.
Regulatory effects:
“Saskatchewan's Health Quality Council, which reports to the public on the health system, is in the midst of considering whether they should be rating the province's doctors in a more scientific, objective manner.”
“A scientific tool might be more useful than user ratings for doctors, he said, because an organization like the Health Quality Council can provide support and education for doctors who garner poor ratings.”
I wonder how this initiative panned out today; I’ll keep you updated on my findings.
“Because there are currently no objective tools available to grade doctors, says Swapceinski, co-founder of RateMDs.com, he believes his website is needed. While regulatory bodies (like the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan) exist to monitor doctor competence, there's no resource telling patients about bedside manner, waiting times or crusty office staff, he said.”
Snip-its that address the disadvantages:
“RateMDs.com isn't making fans out of the medical profession in Canada. The organization that provides Canadian physicians with malpractice insurance has already asked the site to remove potentially defamatory comments.”
“Maura Gillis-Cipywnyk, president of the Saskatchewan branch of the Consumers Association of Canada, said a disgruntled patient is also more likely to rant on the site than a satisfied customer is to sing a doctor's praises.”
“The site is a subjective tool, she said and since the comments are anonymous, no one is accountable for any inaccuracies.”
But then the issue remains that it is anonymous, not that anyone and everyone can comment online… Plus, the article argues that often other patients will jump to the defense of a doctor who has been misrepresented and even doctors themselves have a chance to respond and mark comments they feel are unfair with a red flag. RateMDs.com also has safeguards in place to help stop libelous or unfair comments; moderators remove two to three per cent of posts within 24 hours because they contain serious and unproved allegations.
Regulatory effects:
“Saskatchewan's Health Quality Council, which reports to the public on the health system, is in the midst of considering whether they should be rating the province's doctors in a more scientific, objective manner.”
“A scientific tool might be more useful than user ratings for doctors, he said, because an organization like the Health Quality Council can provide support and education for doctors who garner poor ratings.”
I wonder how this initiative panned out today; I’ll keep you updated on my findings.
No comments:
Post a Comment