| Understanding Online Physician Rating Sites |
|
| Written by Cynthia Atoji | |||
| Tuesday, 15 March 2011 15:28 | |||
|
As if Facebook and Twitter and other social media don’t offer enough cyber-information overload, the newest player in the age of social networking is doctor and hospital rating sites. More than 30 such rate-your-doctor Websites exist today, including Healthgrades.com and RateMDs.com, as well as more general consumer guides such as Angielist.com – more known for rating plumbers than clinicians – and Yelp.com. These sites have been slow to catch on, but fears that the online rating services will become gripe engines for disgruntled patients haven’t proven true. Although the American Medical Association has expressed concerns that patient confidentiality requirements would leave doctors helpless to respond to negative patient reviews on rating websites, researchers have actually found that most physician online reviews are positive. “Patients value their relationship with their clinicians, and I think they respect their healthcare providers and are reluctant to portray them in a negative light,” says Dr. Tara Lagu, of Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, and Baystate Medical Center in Springfield. Lagu examined online reviews for 81 doctors and found that the majority of the reviews were positive, despite doctor’s fears of being roasted by anonymous postings. It might seem strange to some patients to see their doctor reviewed by Yelp, more known for starred restaurant reviews than internist rankings. However, John Swapceinski, co-founder of RateMDs.com, says that “when it comes right down to it, people spend money on health services, just like any other good or product, and they want the most value for their dollars.” RateMDs.com helps consumers find and evaluate physicians. On Vitals.com (“where doctors are examined”) offers reviews, ratings, expertise, experience, sanctions, and other information. Doctors can login to the site and manage their online profiles, verify office information and add a photo, which increases the click-through rate. The physician information and reviews appear not just on the Vitals website, but are also pulled into results on search engines like Google and Bing. Practitioners can offset negative reviews by neutralizing them with positive comments, said Jeffrey Cutler, general manager of Vitals. They can do so by distributing free, customizable comment cards to clientele. “This encourages patients to go online and share their positive interactions with others,” Cutler says. “It hopefully keeps the negative comments offline to be dealt with by your office staff.” “Reputation” websites also offer a way to manage information. RepuChek, now in beta, for example, monitors web activities and social media sites in real-time. Using search engine optimization and other tools, RepuChek pushes positive pages while moving damaging references off the first pages of search results. According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, online physician rating tools are beginning to catch on, with physicians using rating websites to gain prestige and increase consumer confidence in their community. Physicians also use negative rankings to identify areas for improvement. However, in order to be considered reliable in the public eye, the organization believes there must be third party validation of the information on such sites. Chris Bevolo, a Minneapolis, Minn.,-based healthcare marketer and consultant, said that he believes the influence of physician review websites might actually be dropping. “These sites have yet to catch on due to the lack of brand awareness from the many sources among consumers and the transient nature of rating and awards – they’re changing constantly.” But Lagu of Baystate Medical Center and Tufts University, says patient reviews are the next step in a continuing trend toward greater transparency in healthcare. “Instead of fearing what comments patients might leave, physicians and hospitals should encourage feedback,” Lagu says. | |||
View all articles by this author
|
About the Author: Jeff Merron is a full-time freelance editor, journalist, and copywriter who has written for the New York Times Magazine, ESPN.com, Slate, Byte Magazine, Macworld, Consumers Digest, and many other national publications. He's also a regular contributor to IT Business Insider and 108, a baseball magazine. He has a Ph.D. in Mass Communication Research from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
|
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110629/03411314906/doctor-plans-to-appeal-ruling-that-said-complaining-about-his-bedside-manner-was-not-defamation.shtml#comments
Judge tosses Duluth doctor's suit against patient's family
By Mark Stodghill, April 28, 2011
A judge threw out a lawsuit today filed by a Duluth physician who said he was defamed by a man who publicly criticized his bedside manner.
Dr. David McKee, a neurologist with Northland Neurology and Myology, alleged that Dennis Laurion of Duluth defamed him and interfered with his business by making false statements to the American Academy of Neurology, the American Neurological Association, two physicians in Duluth, the St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services Advisory Committee and St. Luke’s hospital, among others.
Laurion was critical of the treatment his father, Kenneth, received from McKee after suffering a hemorrhagic stroke and spending four days at St. Luke’s hospital from April 17-21 last year. Kenneth Laurion recovered from his condition.
Dennis Laurion claimed that any statements he made about the doctor were true and that he was immune from any liability to the plaintiff.
In his 18-page order dismissing the suit, Sixth Judicial District Judge Eric Hylden wrote that looking at Laurion’s “statements as a whole, the court does not find defamatory meaning, but rather a sometimes emotional discussion of the issues.”
Hylden addressed the fact that Laurion posted some of his criticisms of McKee on websites. “In modern society, there needs to be some give and take, some ability for parties to air their differences,” the judge wrote. “Today, those disagreements may take place on various Internet sources. Because the medium has changed, however, does not make statements of this sort any more or less defamatory.”
Hylden concluded his order by stating that there wasn’t enough objective information provided to justify asking a jury to decide the matter.
Laurion was relieved by the court’s ruling.
“My parents, who are now 86, my wife and I have found this process very stressful for the past year, since my father’s stroke. There was never just one defendant,” he said. “We’re grateful that Judge Hylden found no need for a trial.”
In his suit, McKee alleged that Laurion made false statements including that McKee “seemed upset” that Kenneth Laurion had been transferred from the Intensive Care Unit to a ward room; that McKee told the Laurion family that he had to “spend time finding out if [the patient] had been transferred or died;” that McKee told the Laurions that 44 percent of hemorrhagic stroke victims die within 30 days; that McKee told the patient that he didn’t need therapy; that McKee said it didn’t matter that the patient’s gown was hanging from his neck with his backside exposed; that McKee blamed the patient for the loss of his time; and that McKee didn’t treat his patient with dignity.
According to the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice website, McKee has had no disciplinary actions brought against him.
“I’m very disappointed by this court’s decision because as far as I can see the only avenue that I can see that I had to respond to this overwhelming attack was through the courts, and for the time being it appears that avenue has been closed without me ever getting a chance to present my evidence,” McKee said.
McKee said he hadn’t had a chance to confer with Marshall Tanick, his Minneapolis attorney. He said he will do so before he decides whether to appeal the decision. Tanick told the News Tribune he had not yet seen the decision and couldn’t comment on it.
“Dennis Laurion is a liar and a bully and a coward,” McKee said. “