To want MNHQ to get rid of the link to 'I want great care'?

[sallysparrow157]

It's an awful awful website. It is not moderated or validated. Doctors at times have to do things that patients don't like (ie sectioning someone mentally ill, not prescribing methadone for someone who is still using heroin as some extreme examples but even things like not giving antibiotics for a viral infection or not referring someone to something inappropriate), this doesn't make them bad, in fact it makes them better doctors than someone who will do something they think is wrong just to keep the patients happy. However, anyone who has been annoyed by their doctor can post on this site and write whatever abusive things they like and there is no way for the doctor involved to respond.
It is not kept up to date - there are doctors who have been entered as the wrong speciality, doctors down as still practicing who have retired and doctors who have actually been entered on the site after their own death. Relatives of these doctors have contacted the people who run the site and asked for their details to be removed as it is obviously upsetting to know that anyone who fancies it can write abuse on the internet about your dead father, the people who run the site have not done anything about it.
I am a doctor. I undergo constant monitoring of how I do my job, both the clinical side of things and how I communicate with patients and their families. There is an effective complaints/feedback system so if my patients think I am doing something wrong they have a way of letting me know this so I can improve. So I'm not being precious and not wanting anyone to say horrible things about me. I just think that this website is a good way to spout anonymous hatred online about named professionals, if you are that way inclined, and as it is not updated and contains the details of dead and retired doctors but does not contain the details of many doctors working today (including me and everyone else who works in my department - apparently there are no paediatricians in this city...), it is also completely useless.
I'm very disappointed that mumsnet has chosen to publicise it.

I also think that this partnership is ill conceived.

I never chose which doctor I was going to use (other than asking for a female doctor for delicate matters).

I know that most doctors are enormous stress, that they consistently do their best to uphold the Hippocratic oath, and I really think that this site is the antithesis of that.

'First do no harm' - remember that Dr Neil?

Just another voice to add to the Please remove this link.

I'm a long term lurker but wanted to add my voice to this thread. I agree with the OP. Please remove this link. I don't think that Iwantgreatcare is a proper forum to deal with complaints about doctors as it is incredibly subjective. (I'm not a doctor, by the way).

Thanks OP for bringing this to our notice. I had adblock although this does actually get through I hadn't really noticed it at all.

IT IS IN SUCH BAD TASTE. Mumsnet - what have you done/become?

I have now idea wether IWGH is a good site or not (well maybe I have an idea having read the above) but I'm actually in favour of the concept. Most people interact with the NHS when they're at their most vulnerable and don't always want to follow up issues through formal channels but DO want to give feedback. And don't we all want that info? Isn't that what we do on MN all the time (Ie what's best hospital in Se London for birth etc?)

I also think that Drs are more likely to respond to public feedback. A technically excellent Consultant gave mum a terminal diagnosis in a way I will never forget. No compassion at all. I'm not sure a letter to the trust would have ever reached him let alone made him change his ways . But I think a review that he AND all his colleagues saw could be much more powerful - as a teacher suggests in an earlier post. I have huge respect for NHS and all healthcare professionals but when BMA etc argue against patients being able to give feedback it does seem very protectionist and not with the patients interests at heart.

Don't agree Crumblemum. If you write a formal complaint to a Hospital Trust they have to raise it with the doctor or HCP concerned - not least because they have a right to defend themselves.

I have received an apology that way from a doctor whose manner was appalling.

Agree with LineRunner - an elderly friend of mine was treated abysmally by a very rude anaesthetist, who attempted to over-ride her wishes re. the anaesthetic just before giving it to her, despite the schedule that she and the consultant had worked out before hand, based on her reactions to previous anaesthesia. It stressed her out a great deal, despite eventually getting what she had originally been told she would - and she complained via PALS. Got a very nice letter back from the CEO and a written apology from the anaesthetist (who was going to be given further training).

"And don't we all want that info?"

The NHS website already allows you to see feedback on GP surgeries, just not on individual GP's

"Got a very nice letter back from the CEO and a written apology from the anaesthetist (who was going to be given further training)."

Which is, I bet, a hell of a lot more than she would have got if she'd posted on iwgc.

And I bet the anaesthetist will think twice before putting his oar in next time. It's highly doubtful he'd even have seen some random internet post. I bet they don't all sit around googling themselves - especially anaesthetists. I mean it's not like you're going to say, mid-epidural "oh you're Dr Watkins? Sorry but I've read a bad review. I won't have my epidural from you, thanks, I'll wait 8 hours until there's another anaesthetist on shift thank."

The BMA are not against patients giving feedback. They are against that feedback being given in a manner that does not allow proper investigation etc.

Any complaint against a HCP should be made through the proper channels therefore malicious complaints can be detected and not be allowed to ruin that professionsl's career. Even more importantly, when the professional is in the wrong their superiors are aware of it. This allows them to ensure there is the appropriate put in place. This could be as simple as speaking with the professional or instigating training. It may help identify problems with overall procedures and therefore kick start change. There will be a papertrail and in extreme cases would help ensure that those unfit from practicing can be prevented from doing so. Ultimately tehe proper complaints procedure does a lot more to ensure quality of future care. I would encourage anybody who receives poor care to complain properly not use an unregulated website.

The NHS website encourages that feedback. It's really important that complaints and comments are made in a way that they are actually recorded and listened to. Putting them on to an ineffectively moderated site might make you feel better for venting, but it won't change anything. Writing to the health authority or the practice manager or using the NHS website to give feedback means that your comments/complaints will be noted. The doctors will be told. Procedures may be reviewed. In the event of individual misconduct or negligence action will be taken.

My mother will probably still be around for the next 5 years or so because of an excellent NHS surgeon and a good hospital full of NHS staff. If she is, it is no thanks to her lovely GP. The nicest GP I've ever met. Professional, efficient and caring. My GP as a teen. They fucked up. They should have sent her straight to a specialist, do not pass go, do not collect £200. It wasn't a tricky diagnosis. It was something any GP should have done in their sleep. They sent her home and said come back in a month. That month could end up killing her.

If she had moaned about it on that website what good would it have done? It was dealt with through the practice manager. Which resulted in an immediate review of every similar case that doctor had dealt with in the last 5 years. And the cases of all the other doctors in the surgery. It has meant that every doctor in that practise has attended 'refresher' training on that issue. It made that surgery a better surgery within 24 hours. Not only will that mistake not happen to anyone else's mother, if anyone else had been given the same advice and not come back in a month it would have found them. All the other doctors have had a 'there but for the grace of god' moment.

On that website it would probably have been pulled by the site within a few hours of posting as potentially libellous, or gone unnoticed for months, or buried by dozens and dozens of positive reviews of this very good doctor. None of which would have helped a patient coming in the next week with the same issue.

I think it's bloody dangerous. I'm sure if you were due to - for example - have a caesarian section tomorrow and you checked out your appointed surgeon an found a bad review you'd be shitting yourself, or you'd leg it. Where it can be one experience where there are a thousand happy punters who are not motivated to review.

It cheapens your brand Mumsnet

It's not clever either. Do you want to be associated with a site which will be regularly sued and be afforded a reputation for being suited to nutters and whiners? (and if so, I can think of another parenting site you could link to for the latter)

But surely this isn't instead of official complaints it's about feedback. Somethings don't warrant an official complaint (or the person can't face the process) but it's still good to get info. It's what we do on MN all the time with IVF/ birth recommendations, schools. Is it not just pooling this info?

It's pooling the information in a format with no way for the person being judged to speak up, though, Crumblemum. With the official NHS procedure the doctors can defend themselves. They can't here.

We do it all the time about schools, hospitals etc. NOT about individuals. Individuals who can't even defend themselves because it would break patient confidentiality. No, it's not pooling info. I will check a product on Amazon, and I'll read reviews to see if there are issues with a product. The same with Trip Advisor. You always have to ignore the 10% + that are obviously at odds with the majority view. I would not like to see MN associated with something like ratemyteacher which allows anonymous posters to slate someone's professional reputation. To do this with doctors is 10x worse.

I want a nose job. So I do a search for doctors in my area (if the site actually had a completed data base.) I see one with 10 reviews. 9 are outstanding. One says the doctor was cold and judgemental. Probably a good doctor? Unless the 9 reviews came from the doctor's clinic. Or maybe a great doctor, but do you risk your nose? Maybe the 1 bad review was someone pissed off becaue the doctor said 5 nose jobs is enough for one person and they refused to operate.Or go with the doctor with 3 good review and no bad ones.

If you are unhappy with any aspect of your treatment but don't feel it warrants a formal complaint or don't want to go through the whole process, you can still make it known to whatever HCP you dealt with rather than letting rip on some random site.

I only found out today that NHS Choices does not cover Scotland - I thought the website did even though the NHS in England and Scotland has developed quite differently. See, I've learnt something .

I want to know if somebody feels ill treated, whether they want to make a formal complaint or just have a chat. With me, or a colleague; in person or via a representative.

FWIW, I had 3 complaints made against me in the first 2 months of working as a GP principle: one by a drug-seeking addict who I had declined to prescribe Diazepam in industrial quantities for, one by a person who it turned out was just at the beginning of psychotic episode, and, the complain that upset me the most, by a family of a terminally ill person who I had thought I had deveoped v good rapport with. It turned out, the adult child who had brought forward the complaint, had travelled from half-way across the world to see their parents, had not been told that my patient was terminally ill, was reeling from the shock and needed to vent at the unfairness of it all.
All of the above happened in the space of 2 months; I have not had a complaint in the last 12 years since.
Can you see how that would look on a website??

mnhq have gone very quite on this topic for awhile, suppose they assume that we will forget about it eventually and they wont have to do anything about it.

Apparently because it's the weekend.

they have gone quiet because its the weekend? do they not monitor over the weekend?

Of course they monitor over the weekend but they have a skeleton staff. This is a major thing, not something that can be decided in 10 minutes with most of the staff gone.

Did you read the thread? This has been discussed over and over and over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over.

skeleton staffing over the weekend I imagine

be patient

Tee2072, I understand what you're saying but it is not a major thing at all to pull the add for two days whilst they enjoy their weekend and have a think about it. It would take minutes to do the work required.

to pull it.

Crumblemum - as far as public feedback is concerned - I have been on IWGC twice - once in 2008 when I first came aware of it and once when I saw it on here (as it reminded me of the fact that the site exists, I thought it had died a death in 2008) - both times just to check I was not on it. I'm not, but if someone had added me and written something about me in 2008, I wouldn't have seen it til Friday. It's not a site that doctors are made aware of, I only knew about it through DNUK, I'm sure a large number of doctors who do not use the DNUK forums don't even know the site exists. So there is no garuantee that feedback posted on this site will ever get back to the doctor it has been posted about.
I have been mentioned in a formal complaint (malicious as it happens - the details in the complaint were very different to what actually happened but that's not the point - had the complaint been valid it would have been dealt with the same) - I was informed of the complaint within a few days of it having been made, was required to write a statement in response, I was required to have a formal meeting with the consultant in charge of the patient's care, this all occured very soon after the event complained about.
The complaints process in the NHS is incredibly thorough and things do actually change because of it, anyone involved in a complaint receives the feedback deemed necessary - it works (I know the people who work in the complaints department in my hopsital, I know what they do and the processes they are required to go through for EVERY complaint and every piece of feedback they receive and I know what ward managers etc have to do in response to these processes so do have a reasonable idea of what goes on behind the scenes!).

IWGC does not exist to offer feedback to doctors, it is a ratings site for patients to use to theoretically keep them informed and assist them in choosing the best doctor - it doesn't achieve that because it is not up to date (for example there are 7 paediatricians allegedly working in my hospital (there are actually (when the rota is as full as it should be) about 14 house officer/SHO level doctors, 21 registrar level doctors and over 20 consultant level doctors (ie including associate specialists etc) in paeds in this hospital.Of the 7 listed, I have never heard of 2 of them (I've worked there 3 yrs so they defintely have not worked there in this time and I have never even heard these names mentioned). The name the hospital is listed under is also wrong. It also does not achieve this as all ratings are anonymous and there is no way of telling if they are malicious or not, or even if the person writing the comment has spent any time in the same country as the doctor involved. So it does not achieve what it sets out to do and it does not offer feedback to doctors as there is no way of knowing unless you check the site on a daily basis if you are even on the site let alone what has been said about you, and as I mentioned previously, many doctors don't even know the site exists (as it was never designed for the benefit of doctors).

If I have upset any of my patients or their families, if I have misdiagnosed something or not communicated correctly or done anything that any of my patients are unhappy about, I want to know about it. I need to know about it. I need to know who I have upset, I need to read their notes to try to work out what went wrong, I need to do everything in my ability to right any wrongs and to apologise for anything I have done wrong. Anonymous feedback on a website I have looked at twice in 3 years (because I genuinely thought it didn't exist any more til I saw it on here) is not going to enable me to do any of this.

(I'm off to work now so not ignoring any comments to this rant btw!)

i read most of the thread, didnt read the last 3 pages or so. so my bad but i was just enquiring friend. and yes it would not take long to pull the ad temporarily though that would be making a big statement.