What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
203 Comments
- Nudar, on 03/05/2009, -4/+87There's no way for the doctors to respond without violating doctor-patient confidentiality. If a patient gets pissed that you're not giving them the vicodin they want, expect a bad review.
- REBECCAFRIEDMAN, on 03/05/2009, -12/+79A doctor, like every other kind of business, builds a reputation based upon customer service, expertise, and quality. Allowing and encouraging patients to post reviews will only benefit this industry. Of course, those doctors who are below par will not fare as well!
- whiteboyrob, on 03/05/2009, -6/+40As a med student it really saddens me to read articles like this and see some of the above comments that are made purely out of ignorance. Yes a doctor should be judged on how he or she treats patients. Yes the courtesy and professionalism of the staff and services should be critiqued. But unless an objective review system is put into place that limits extraneous and irrelevant subjectiveness, the doctor is always going to lose. The American health care system is so broken and the malpractice litigation is so out of control that I am required to run extraneous, expensive, and sometime painful testing to justify my 12+ years of training to someone's 30 seconds of webmd searching lest they go home feeling like I didn't do my job and destroy my credibility with one rating.
I totally believe that doctor's need to move more toward taking a good history and physical (thus saving time and money for everyone) and limiting their reliance on lab data. But it's hard to do this when people values lab data and fancy pictures over old fashioned good doctoring.
The AMA already has a place where you can file a complaint and have it reviewed. These 'rate-my-doc' sites offer no review of complaints to determine if they are valid. - waydee, on 03/05/2009, -4/+32It's difficult, doctors often have to disappoint patients in various ways like disagreeing with a diagnosis - often a self diagnosis, being unable to identify an ailment a patient is complaining about, denying the supply of drugs, pointing out harsh realities etc.
I'm not saying there aren't bad doctors out there and I do admit that being asked to sign such a waiver would possibly dent my confidence in a doctor but often unfair criticism is made against people working in medicine and healthcare. - Frankyfan3, on 03/05/2009, -7/+35Some patients aren't happy no matter what you do, and I think there should be a way for Doctors to petition to get reviews removed that are critical of the doctor for following procedure.
But I work in a clinic and we are actually promoting the internet reviews, you get the good with the bad. - DukeLeto2, on 03/05/2009, -10/+34Well what a great way to know that your doctor sucks? If he's not willing to be reviewed and commented on, then he has something to hide or at least be ashamed of.
- fearofcups, on 03/05/2009, -10/+33Doctors can't please everyone. It only takes one disgruntled patient to write something nasty or put up a very bad review. Doctors already have enough problems with malpractice insurance.
- tglas, on 03/05/2009, -3/+23My father is a surgeon. He has to deal with increasing malpractice suits due to people who want money for their loss, as well. Aside from that, I grew up with several kids who wanted to kick MY ass because their grandmothers died under my father's care. *****! SHE WAS 90 AND HAD SUFFERED 2 CORONARIES BEFORE COMING TO THE HOSPITAL! If a doctor sews your testicles to your left eyelid, then, Yes, sue him! Otherwise, he is a doctor, not a god. Leave him alone or perform your own damn surgeries!
- elliotys, on 03/05/2009, -3/+22I think the real issue arises when you look at what people rate their doctors on. Many times if a doctor refuses to dispense a medication, like an antibiotic if there is no bacterial infection, or a painkiller when the patient is exhibiting signs of drug seeking behavior, the patients can be very nasty. With the rise of the internet everybody thinks they are an expert, however it takes years of education to appropriately assess patients and conditions.
With that said, if a doctor is being neglectful or dangerous, then by all means expose them and pursue it in the court of law. However after working in the healthcare industry (I work in a pharmacy) I am suprised by the lack of respect people show when they don't get what they want when they want it. - Harabeck, on 03/05/2009, -4/+23The problem is that many patients come in and they want some magic cure for the ailment. But when the doctor prescribes a difficult treatment(diet change whatever), which may be the best choice, they get mad and go find a crappy doctor who will keep them supplied with prescriptions for narcotic pain killers. Guess who gets the good the review... Now who is the better doctor?
- cr12345, on 03/05/2009, -1/+19I can tell you are not a lawyer, because you assume reasonable things are allowed by a court of law.
The patient privacy act (HIPAA) does not allow you to discuss a patient's medical record / facts of the case with the public, even if the issue is being addressed in a public forum.
Another reason that these review sites are not liked by doctors, even those who do get good reviews. This is the major reason for the opposition to these sites.
Now if there was a way to address the doctor's point of view and allow them to disclose facts of the case, which presents other facts the reviewer does not address, then I think a lot more doctors would be ok with these review sites. - kiiwii, on 03/05/2009, -1/+19But with a doctor, I don't imagine there are many people who are going to go out of their way to look for a place to post good reviews. People that are upset are much more likely to look for an outlet to complain. So these "doctor review sites" are likely to be skewed towards the negative.
And like Nudar below posts, there's no way for a doctor to respond to these negative criticisms. While I don't agree in a "no review" policy, there has to be some sort of regulation of them so someone can't just try to ruin a doctor because of a grudge. - tacobueno, on 03/05/2009, -8/+24Ill take my business someplace where I am not required to sign a silence agreement.
- iritegood, on 03/05/2009, -4/+20My experience: dissatisfied people are a lot more likely to share their experience with the world than satisfied people.
- Anand999, on 03/05/2009, -8/+22It's no different from reviews of restaurants, movies, etc. Sure, you'll have a few people that are unhappy and give a bad review, but if you're a good doctor, you'll get lots of positive reviews too that will outweigh the few bad ones. If you're a bad doctor, then you deserve the bad reviews.
- m00n1, on 03/05/2009, -1/+14I've seen studies which show patients are (on average) significantly happier with a doctors appointment when they walk away with a prescription for some medicine. So, a doctor who wants to keep their reviews positive, should prescribe something to every patient, regardless of whether or not it's the best for them. It's a tricky problem and I don't have any easy answers, but saying it's simply customer service is not true.
- MischiefGirl, on 03/05/2009, -1/+13I don't see how there's any way doctors can stop this nor should they. Any good doctor, or restaurant, or ebay seller is going to have a few bad reviews amongst a sea of glowing reviews. If you're a good physician, people will look at what the aggregate number of reviews say and realize that the negative opinions are just a couple of surly patients, people who just have a pessimistic, harsh view of everything in life, including their doctor. Not to mention many physicians have amazingly loyal patients who would definitely go to bat for them on the message boards. ex. "How dare you say that about Dr. X?! He's been our family's doctor for 15 years. He discovered my breast cancer in time and saved my life!"
People have been recommending doctors by word of mouth since forever. This is just the next phase.
I think doctors do have a legitimate concern where it comes to defamation though. People who were never your patients can log on to these sites and pretend to be a patient of yours and just say all this made-up crap about you. But on the other hand, you can't have posters use their real names or that could violate the doctor-patient confidentiality. Say, you see an HIV/AIDS specialist to manage your HIV..bam! now that everyone knows you're his patient, they know your HIV status. Not to mention this could affect your care if you ever go back to this physician. I think there needs to be some sort of protection for both doctors and patients.
-future doctor (current med student) who grew up with the internet - AkiraIsley, on 03/05/2009, -6/+17It only take one nasty review? I disagree. If a doctor has 30 positive reviews and only one or two bad ones, then that tells me that this doctor is pretty damn good. No one is perfect. And no doctor is going to get a perfect overall score.
Edit: Beat me to it Anand999. Ah, great minds think alike.... - newman8r, on 03/05/2009, -2/+13the problem is that doctors are taking the wrong stance here, just like the RIAA did with napster.
they should be trying to create a central, moderated and objective system rather than trying to stifle people's opinions on the internet. - thegrantman, on 03/05/2009, -5/+16A patient may not always understand what's good or bad in complicated issues.
Problems are best left to medical boards. - Barackalypse, on 03/05/2009, -2/+11I don't care what patients think, I want statistics about his diagnostic efficiency. Telling me what percent of the time he misdiagnoses or he successfully treats the problem has actual value, hearing about whether Sally thinks the Doctor was nice to her is not medically relevant information. Case in point, Dr. House on TV is a bastard, he'd have horrible patient reviews, but ultimately his diagnostic success rate with 10 minutes or less in the episode is nearly 100%.
- waydee, on 03/05/2009, -0/+9Tell me about it. "HOW HARD IS IT TO COUNT OUT SOME PILLS? GOD!1"
sound familiar? - DrDigg, on 03/05/2009, -2/+11If you want to find out who is a good doctor ask the nurses who work around him/her at the hospital or where they do procedures. If you don't know any nurses ask someone who works in another doctors office who they hear good/bad things about. Also make sure they are board certified or board eligible. You can also look online and find out where they did their residency. Most good residency programs won't "graduate" doctors that don't meet their standards. My internship program got rid of about 5% of the internship class because they didn't meet their standards.
My grandmother loves her doctor because he is really nice to her, never mind that he is a quack and has basically ignored her hypertension for decades. Patient word of mouth may not be very reliable. - SkripOnToast, on 03/05/2009, -2/+10Speaking from the point of view of being a physician I can tell you that the medical profession is not a racket. We don't want to order needless tests or irradiate you every time you come to the ER with a CAT scan. But we have to go the extra frivolous mile to cover our asses. It is what we call CYA(cover your ass) medicine, we do it everyday. It is a violation of the spirit of our profession that we are forced to defend ourselves from lawsuits day in day out. It gets to the point where at times you stop seeing a patient as a person with a problem and look at them as a potential law suit. Then the very people we trained our whole lives to help become the enemy. So yes we get bitter and yes we get cynical. We know what we are doing is pointless in many ways so it eats away at us. Not to mention the fact that we are already over worked and exhausted. We make barely enough to pay off our med school debt, earn enough to maybe retire at the age of 80 and put our kids through college, without a lot of free time to enjoy it and on top of that you are going to have every patient that doesn't like the fact that I didn't give them dilaudid post a poor review of my performance because they don't like our assessment. Honestly if I could go back and do it again I wouldn't go into medicine at all, but by third year of med school you can't even quit. You are so locked in with debt that ONLY becoming a doctor can POSSIBLY get you out. So those wanting to get into this messy profession please consider what you are asking for. Also be nice to your doctor, don't come into the clinic or hospital with your mind made up saying you know what is wrong with you and you know what we need to prescribe you to fix it. You don't go to a mechanic and tell them how to fix your car do you? Trust me the body is way more complicated than a webMD blurb.
- skintigh, on 03/05/2009, -3/+11If your doctor is trying to restrict your (and others) access to information, you need to get the hell out of there as fast as you can.
- wolferz, on 03/05/2009, -0/+7I've been working in computer repair for just over 10 years now... in that time I've noticed a few ways in which the medical and computer industries are very similar. Among these is that the way customers treat computer techs and doctors is very much the same.
I can think of a few possible reasons for this but I think the most likely reason is that computer users have about the same understanding about their computer as the average patient does about their own body. So what happens when some one has it in their head that their computer has X problem (their bother and law said so and he works for <insert IT company name here>) when the problem is really Y... not X. What happens is the customer doesn't believe you. The only explanation that tells them you are right comes from you... and you are making money off of them... so why would you be honest if it would cost you money. The same thing happens to doctors...
The problems is people don't know what we know, don't want to know what we know, and couldn't even if they did. They are in a position where they ether trust us or they don't. On the flip side of that it's really not hard for a computer tech or a doctor to take advantage of the knowledge gap between them and their clients... and the clients know it.
Hell, in the computer industry, most "computer guys" don't know much more about computers than the people who's computers they are fixing... they just have inflated egos... which creates an even bigger potential for bad advice to be spread and believed (i'm libertarian... mostly... but i still think the computer industry needs tighter regulation). All the "quack" computer techs out there are having the same effect on those of us that know what we are doing as "quack" doctors were having on real doctors at the turn of the century and before.
It's unfortunate... but it comes with the territory when you work in a service oriented industry mired in technical jargon and enough stacks of documentation to sink a oil tanker. It's why I formed my business as an LLC. It doesn't matter how good a job I do, sooner or later some idiot is gonna convince himself that between him and his brothers teenage kid he knows more about computers than I do and try to sue me for what he thinks I was trying to do to him. That's also why I focus on having very open policies and having as much transparency in what I do as possible. And if (when?) I do get dragged off to court I keep a mountain of documentation for every customer and ever bit of repair work complete with signed agreements for the repairs and initialed invoices. It's sad that I have to do that... but I do.
Do I agree with what these doctors are doing? No. Do I agree with what the patients are doing? No. Sure, some of them have an actual grievance. Most, however, do not and I understand the doctors' anger regarding it. - newman8r, on 03/05/2009, -0/+7I think you missed the point of his post...
- quaunaut, on 03/05/2009, -7/+13No, they really don't have enough problems. And if it's just 1 bad review against 30 or 40 good, no one will care. But many bad reviews = ***** doctor = lawlpractice
- NotShorty, on 03/05/2009, -1/+7Waiting for the doctor takes a long time. In related news, the sky is blue.
- gan911, on 03/05/2009, -8/+14jeez, its like rate your accountant, lawyer, psychologist, vet, etc.. You're rating something you have no idea about...unless you went to 4 years of med school + 4 years of residency + seeing countless patients, you only have what the internet tells you. Each person practices medicine in their own perspective, and even doctors cannot agree on the same treatment principle. To allow just anyone to rate and comment on your ability to practice medicine is just stupid.
people, its not a restaurant review on yelp, its a professional job where your reputation and title is the only source of respect before meeting the patient. If a patient doesn't trust and respect their doctor, then the job becomes that much harder. So whats going to happen when pissed off patients start posting false reviews? - thegrantman, on 03/05/2009, -1/+7Baracalypse: Even if it were legal to do so,the doctor would look bad by responding.
It's a no win situation. - vertigo32, on 03/05/2009, -0/+5The biggest problem I have with online ratings is that because of HIPAA regulations, a doctor has no way to respond to criticism. They can't post a response or even - short of legal action - have the site posting the review remove patently false statements.
Medicine isn't like other fields, and it has professional review boards that investigate claims. I think - at most - that the AMA should provide information similar to the BBB. If you could look up every licensed doctor in a central database and see the number of complaints and the general nature of the complaints, and the outcome, that should give everyone the information they need. - planck0, on 03/05/2009, -4/+9I don't see a problem with patients being able to review doctors... as long as doctors can also review their patients. I'd be all in favor of a non-anonymous doctor/patient review forum run by the state that issues doctors' medical licenses. I'd even be in favor of the patient reviews only being visible by the patient and other doctors.
- Trichomonas, on 03/05/2009, -0/+5Q: Do you know what they call a person who has to resort to using webMD to self-diagnose?
A: NOT a doctor.
You have to be kidding me if you think you can get "by" med school without knowing your stuff. It isn't like high school where the passing grade is a 50-60%. Med schools have standards and even the person graduating last in his class managed to get into med school which is more than can be said for a lot of people. - Ellipsys, on 03/05/2009, -0/+5What doctor is this that charges like that? Do you mean the emergency room? There is no CPT code worth $425 for even a 15 minute OFFICE visit, much less fewer than that. Unless you saw a plastic surgeon I can't imagine how this could come to be.
Now, if you went to the ER, that's not the doctor billing you, that's the ***** hospital and the doctor doesn't see a cent, more or less. - waydee, on 03/05/2009, -0/+5I agree but there are still patients who are going to react negatively regardless of how they are actually treated.
Don't take what I said the wrong way, there are bad doctors who will provoke a negative reaction but there are just as many bad patients who see doctors as someone tasked with serving their wishes who just love to raise hell when they don't get their way. It's ***** that those people have the power to harm a doctors reputation for merely acting in the professional capacity that they are tasked, trained and trusted to.
I've heard of complaints being made about doctors because they dared mention out loud that a patient is overweight or because they wouldn't prescribe addictive analgesics for mild pain. There's ***** doctors and ***** patients but this isn't right. - Ellipsys, on 03/05/2009, -1/+6
First, there is a minority, but still large enough to make a major impact on a doctor's credibility these days, of people who will nitpick every little thing. Waiting too long? Unforeseen outcome? Was the doctor not "warm" enough? Yes, this does happen. Even at malpractice cases. Every doctor is sued at some point in their career. My father has been practicing for more than thirty years, and one of the few suits brought against him was a case where standard of care was upheld, but "non-economic damages" (ie pain and suffering) were levied because the jury felt the patient "should have something" because her case ended up with a sucky outcome, even if it wasn't the doctor's fault. Some people just feel that they need to blame someone, and it can cost others their livelihood.
Second, as I said before I don't have a problem with patients "rating" their doctors, but only under certain circumstances including the doctor's ability to say "Sorry, this doesn't stick because you obviously had no idea about the case". People don't on average have enough knowledge to be able to make that designation. "good healthcare" and "good doctor" are too subjective. "Occasional nut" isn't how things work - we've seeen the internet. Picture the equivilent of a power digger getting all their friends to digg down a certain doctor. Picture the inverse, where a slimy doctor hires a firm to create tons of fake positive reports. If you don't do away with anonymity, this WILL happen. Things will get out of hand very quickly. Also, the threshold for quality in review of a physician is MUCH higher than that of a restaurant or any other non-critical business. People may try a three-star restaurant , but nobody will try a three-star doctor. People don't want to see ANY possible negatives, as that is what they'll be focusing on when they see the doctor, which makes it even more likely that people will sue frivolously if anything goes wrong.
Lastly, if the PATIENT goes on the internet and blabs about their healthcare, thereby breaking the confidentiality agreement to basically slander a doctor, as it currently stands in many areas a doctor cannot provide relevant evidence to refute these claims. Why should that be? The patient broke the agreement first, but are hiding behind an asymmetrical law that requires written consent to discuss the case. This is unfair to physicians. Shouldn't anyone be able to confront their accusers and provide evidence to the contrary.
Entitled persons like you tend to be horrible patients. Or perhaps, you're proving my point - you're just plain misinformed. - Ellipsys, on 03/05/2009, -0/+5That depends. Would you have any problem with them responding to the review, citing evidence that their costs were in line with local body shops and that you were, in fact a moron?
- tglas, on 03/05/2009, -1/+6I wish it were that simple.
- Ellipsys, on 03/05/2009, -0/+5@norcalty -
So am I to understand that this doctor you didn't like was.... not interested? Didn't give you that "warm, caring" feeling I spoke about above? But you said she didn't misdiagnose, she didn't fail to give you a drug. She "Seemed like she lacked a lot of general knowledge" - How did you come to that conclusion? What facts is this based upon? This seems like a personality problem, not a medical one. My mechanic is a jerk, but he does a damn good job of fixing my car. I would never go to rate-a-mechanic.com and give him one star because he told me to change the goddamn oil earlier next time. That "one star" would be blemishing his reputation as a mechanic professionally, not simply that he wasn't the coolest guy I ever met.
I'm sorry you had a bad experience with a physician. You are entitled to you opinion. I don't personally feel that anyone should be tarnished professionally because of temperament issue that does not directly affect your care. Look at all the IT guys out there that are hell to deal with, but damn good at what they do. Same thing with doctors. There's a orthopod I know who's pretty damn close to "House", but he's a fine doctor. In this way, I think you were misusing the system. Would it have been okay for that doctor to rate you as a patient? "Norcality was demanding, constantly was insistent on treatments that were not medically necessary, and belligerent. D+ patient at best, would not treat again".
That said, even assuming that you're making responsible comments, a completely unregulated and anonymous system is detrimental for the reasons I've explained above. Nobody is afraid of criticism - not me, not any doctors that I know of. However, nobody wants to be at the mercy of vindictive or misinformed people without any recourse. You seem to believe that the system would always be fair - doctors would do good work, and patients would leave good feedback. This is not how real life works. Examples in other fields (including the current Yelp issue) prove that this system is an ideal, not a reality.
About the law suits issue, is where you are misinformed. Malpractice law is horribly biased against physicians since it is easier for the prosecution to make a jury believe "OMG DOCTOR HURT PERSON LOOK AT THEM ITS HORRIBLE " Than it is for the defense to make a case and indicate the current standard of care, how it was lived up to, the failings of the patient and a whole ***** of technical and legal issues. If protection is not drafted, there is the likely possibility that these sites will be used as supporting evidence in a case against a physician. "Oh, it says here that doctor X had... oh, a negligent manner! Well, I know my client thinks so, as he's lost a leg and all... but it seems that prior to my client's case at least 30 other people disagreed". This stuff should not be admissible as character or circumstantial evidence, and unless people take steps to ensure they're not, they will be. - Murdats, on 03/05/2009, -1/+5doctors aren't part of the service industry, they are part of the professional industry.
are lawyers, mechanics, surgeons and the like all part of the service industry just because they interact with the public? - TrevorBelmont, on 03/05/2009, -6/+10Knowing that my doctor had employed a monitoring service to search for negative reviews of him or her would be reason enough for me to find another doctor.
- digxag, on 03/05/2009, -7/+11Shady shenanigans like this are clearly against the idea of having an informed populace. Doctors and all other professionals who are licensed and/or accredited by the state ought to be barred from silencing consumer criticism as a condition of receiving and renewing their licenses. All existing waivers should be declared void as a matter of public policy.
As far as nutcase patients who slander their doctors, well, slander's still actionable under the law. Other than that, professionals should deal with negative reviews as part of the risk of doing business in the real world. - gsenechal, on 03/05/2009, -1/+5I respect your point of view very much. I can totally appreciate what it might be like to have addicts demand pills and not care about anything else.
But I also think people are capable of interpreting reviews based on the whole picture. The oddball negative review isn't taken seriously.
My wife's doctor's reviews are 95% positive. But when we read them, the 5% negative comments don't deter her from returning because they are from people who have been incorrectly diagnosed, knew it, and dealt with it.
Assuming your doctor is always correct is an extremely dangerous thing. - Ellipsys, on 03/05/2009, -2/+6I am the son of a physician, and am on my way to become a physician myself if things pan out. That said, I honestly don't think this is a good idea being unregulated as it is. Lets face it there are certainly exceptions and informed individuals, but the vast majority of the population doesn't have the skills or knowledge of standard of care to critique a doctor. For instance, I'm sure there will be a lot of people who rail on a doctor's bedside manner, or freak out and call malpractice for a negative outcome - even if it was well within the parameters of risk. Now, I completely admit that there are some, even many doctors out there who don't listen to their patients, have god complexes, or are difficult to work with (sometimes both for other physicians and for patients!).
As such my feeling is this - Patients and individuals should be able to discuss their doctors and the care they received - HOWEVER, none of these discussions can be admissible evidence in a malpractice trial, and all physicians should immediately be able to post replies, have outright flames removed, and not be bound by confidentiality laws in the event the patient breaks them by posting on a website somewhere (ie. Patient posts that his impotence wasn't cured by PDE-5 inhibitors and the doctor is a charlatan, the doc should be able to come back and say "I told your ass you had to get your diabetes under control. Have you done it? Have you come back to see me to tell me the levitra isn't working?" without fear of being slammed for breaking confidentiality). - taubootis, on 03/05/2009, -0/+4well i was thinking that 1 irate patient could reduce the doctor's rep to ruble, but your point is a great...a resourceful doctor could manipulate forums as cheap advertising
- DrDigg, on 03/05/2009, -0/+4I'm not saying that there is a problem with people doing reviews. I just wouldn't trust them. You can get better information from other sources.
- newman8r, on 03/05/2009, -0/+4I think if a patient posts that the doctor was a genius but pretty rude, people can do a quick analysis and determine whether or not they want to go there.
If your dry cleaner always gets the stains out but treats you like a bastard, I think that's relavent information. A doctor's performance may be more important than their demeanor, but that doesn't mean demeanor isn't an important factor as well. - leopardhunter, on 03/05/2009, -1/+5I see why doctors would want a quick solution to the problem of ignorant negative reviews. Lots of former patients blame the doctor when no doctor could have done any better.
That said, doctors need to get a grip. Learn communication skills so that you can explain to the patient why they are feeling horrible and why modern medicine is not able to perform miracles in light of their 40 year smoking habit, etc....
It's no surprise that doctors from Wanawanastan get negative reviews from patients that they don't deserve. The American patients can't understand what they are saying. - Wrangler76, on 03/05/2009, -1/+5Let me get this straight. You don't think whiny parents wanting their kids to get an antibiotic for a viral throat infection is part of the problem here? Nooo, it's big pharma's fault, a nice catch phrase on Digg of course. It's also a sign that you have no fricking clue about what you're talking about, and you're exactly the type of person that makes it a bad idea to allow anonymous, online reviews of doctors. Maybe try shadowing a doctor, sending a doctor a letter, etc to try to find out what they think of your opinion that pushy patients aren't part of the problem and then get back to me.
And it's news to me that every other industry that has online reviews from their clients? Do physiotherapists, nurses, pharmacists, etc. have their own review websites?
You completely ignored my point about how a doctor can be good at diagnosis but not charm, and he will be looked over by many because some disgruntled patients that want to be spoonfed can trash them in their reviews. Patients can already pass along recommendations in real-life about what doctors to choose. They don't need an anonymous internet system where any fool can trash a doctor without REALLY being sure of himself and putting his own reputation on the line.
And about your last point: So what is the point of these reviews then? It's not about diagnostic ability according to you, but it's about how long they have to wait or how much of a salesman the doctor can be? Are you out of your mind?? I can only imagine how great that will work out. Doctors must spend time to explain everything to a patient yet they can't make a patient wait long, or else they will get a bad review.
I've actually skimmed through reviews for my family doctor online. He's an excellent doctor. He's courteaous and knowledgeable, yet his ratings are low because he has long wait times. Why? Because he actually spends time with patient. When you scroll through the list of doctors, he'll be one of the ones you avoid because he has a low overall rating. Diagnostic ability is very hard for a patient to measure, so he'll definitely not get any points for that. His courteaous manner is over-ridden by his long wait times
I have a feeling that these websites will only push doctors to try to merely please patients instead of properly treating them. -
Show 51 - 100 of 206 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is