Kernal83

10+ Year Member
Feb 3, 2008
117
0
Milwaukee
Status
Medical Student
Here is an interesting article published in the LA Times about websites where patients can rate their doctors. I personally think it isn't too great of an idea because I think that the potential for harm is greater than good. I also understand that if you are a "good doctor" you supposedly should have nothing to worry about. Your thoughts?

http://www.latimes.com/features/heal...,6851576.story
 

riverwoman1040

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 18, 2007
291
0
Status
Medical Student
I'll repost:

Transparency is a good thing. Random ranting patients and tiny sample sizes are not a good thing. Check out the Wisconsin Hospital Association's Checkpoint and Pricepoint to see how ratings can be done empirically and fairly. The random online stuff is useless, meaningless and harmful.
 

lildave2586

10+ Year Member
May 12, 2008
293
4
The ville
Status
Medical Student
Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan contains a ton of stuff about generating doctor ratings and making them available to patients. The philosophy being transparency is good, but have fun trying to make it work.

I don't know how I feel about it. Take an anaestesiologist for example. They could do 1000 cases and have good outcomes. Then they have a bad day and one case goes bad and all of a sudden they can be labeled a doctor to stay away from.
 

LeLu

Cookie Monster
10+ Year Member
Nov 19, 2007
209
0
Status
Medical Student
Here is an interesting article published in the LA Times about websites where patients can rate their doctors. I personally think it isn't too great of an idea because I think that the potential for harm is greater than good. I also understand that if you are a "good doctor" you supposedly should have nothing to worry about. Your thoughts?

http://www.latimes.com/features/heal...,6851576.story
Link Broken
 

riverwoman1040

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jan 18, 2007
291
0
Status
Medical Student
Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan contains a ton of stuff about generating doctor ratings and making them available to patients. The philosophy being transparency is good, but have fun trying to make it work.

I don't know how I feel about it. Take an anaestesiologist for example. They could do 1000 cases and have good outcomes. Then they have a bad day and one case goes bad and all of a sudden they can be labeled a doctor to stay away from.
That's why it only works if done by a third party. If you look at sites like Leapfrog, Checkpoint, etc. you can see that one unavoidable bad case won't hurt you. When you have studies with high enough n values that they're valid, it works. It's an entirely different situation than one angry, possibly uneducated patient complaining online. As for "have fun trying to make it work," it's actually part of my job right now, and it's working quite well. Quality is improving, and the providers have actually come to like it because it helps them see where they can improve.
 

AmoryBlaine

the last tycoon
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
May 1, 2006
2,179
24
Status
Attending Physician
That's why it only works if done by a third party. If you look at sites like Leapfrog, Checkpoint, etc. you can see that one unavoidable bad case won't hurt you. When you have studies with high enough n values that they're valid, it works. It's an entirely different situation than one angry, possibly uneducated patient complaining online. As for "have fun trying to make it work," it's actually part of my job right now, and it's working quite well. Quality is improving, and the providers have actually come to like it because it helps them see where they can improve.
Uh, where is this happening and how many providers are we talking about?
 

Bushido416

Tired of basic research
10+ Year Member
Oct 6, 2006
100
0
Status
Medical Student
www.healthgrades.com is an example of this it pretty much has most doctors that have been in practice for 3 years or more. It's interesting but it should be taken with about as much salt as ratemyprofessor.com where you can go in find a professor you absolutely loved and find them rated poorly because they were difficult or someone flunked their class. If done fairly it's good but if it's just a facebook style blog then one uneducated unhappy patient can ruin it for that doctor. Also it adds another party to protect yourself against on top of defensive medicinal practices to cover from legal liability you also have to please patients who come in with their half baked diagnoses from their 30mins of web browsing or watching mystery diagnosis. If a doctor is rated well it won't necessarily infer quality as much as likeability and it becomes a popularity contest.
 

njbmd

Guest
Moderator Emeritus
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
May 30, 2001
9,050
145
Gone Walkabout!
Visit site
Status
Attending Physician
Moving to Topics in Healthcare as this thread is more suited to that forum as opposed to medical school education.
 

tussin

Humorologist
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Mar 15, 2006
20
0
www.medicalhumor.net
Status
Non-Student
pretty much every physician will be sued at one point in their career, especially in specialties like OBGYN. If you haven't been sued yet, it's because you haven't been practicing long enough. With frivolous lawsuits by hungry attorneys so prevalent, it's bound to happen, and when that does, it's open season for a disgruntled patient to say what ever they want without fully understanding the implications
 

docB

Chronically painful
Moderator Emeritus
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Nov 27, 2002
7,742
217
Las Vegas, NV
Status
Attending Physician
That's why it only works if done by a third party. If you look at sites like Leapfrog, Checkpoint, etc. you can see that one unavoidable bad case won't hurt you. When you have studies with high enough n values that they're valid, it works. It's an entirely different situation than one angry, possibly uneducated patient complaining online. As for "have fun trying to make it work," it's actually part of my job right now, and it's working quite well. Quality is improving, and the providers have actually come to like it because it helps them see where they can improve.
This is all similar to the ill conceived CMS "Core Measures" and "PQRI" debacles that are being inflicted on us now. I suppose if you define "quality" as whatever yardsticks you've assigned value to in your surveys you could say that it's improving but what we've seen so far with the core measures is that the quality indicators were pretty bad and the data collection has been worse.
 

cathyz

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
May 13, 2008
7
0
at the hauz
Status
Non-Student
Here is an interesting article published in the LA Times about websites where patients can rate their doctors. I personally think it isn't too great of an idea because I think that the potential for harm is greater than good. I also understand that if you are a "good doctor" you supposedly should have nothing to worry about. Your thoughts?

http://www.latimes.com/features/heal...,6851576.story
First of all, your posted link are not already accessible. Anyway, for me you have the point because isn't necessary to do something like that just to give idea to others just to know that this guy is a "good doctor". As we all know that this field is not a celebrity field which popularity is an edge to know of who is the "good doctor".