The question always is what the ratings are based on. Cost effectiveness? Popularity? Reputation? Patients are notorious for rating doctors based on perception - i.e., that guy gave me Xanax, so he's awesome. The other guy said no, he sucks. Would work similarly for pathologists and their consumers. That guy gave a very long and detailed report (it was wrong, but that doesn't matter), so he's awesome. The other guy said "adenocarcinoma" and that was it. He sucks.
If I order fewer immunostains do I get a better rating?
If I get more consults do I get a better rating?
If I get named in fewer lawsuits do I get a better rating?
If I teach do I get a better rating?
too many variables. Another pointless and ultimately trivial endeavor which some people will take way too seriously.
If I am evaluating doctors, I would want to know one thing: Are they respected by people in their field and at the place they work?
