In the age of social networking -- as if Facebook, Twitter and other social media don’t offer enough cyber-information overload --  the newest player 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 Yelp.com and Angielist.com, which is more known for rating plumbers than clinicians.

But these sites have been slow to catch on, and 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,” said Dr. Tara Lagu, of Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, and Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, who 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 to see their doctor reviewed by Yelp, more known for starred restaurant reviews than internist rankings, but even John Swapceinski, co-founder of RateMDs.com, which helps consumers find and evaluate physicians, said that “people spend money on health services, just like any other good or product, and they want the most value for their dollars.”

On Vitals.com (“where doctors are examined”) doctors can log in and manage their online profile, verifying office information and adding a photo, which increases the click-through rate. The site offers reviews, ratings, expertise, experience, sanctions, and other information.

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, by distributing free, customizable comment cards to clientele. “This encourages patients to go online and share their positive interactions with others,” said Cutler. “And 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 realtime. Using search engine optimization and other tools, it 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, said patient reviews are the next step in a continuing trend of greater transparency in healthcare. “Instead of fearing what comments patients might leave, physicians and hospitals should encourage feedback,” Lagu said.