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.

Tech may be on call and not just hanging around the shed and I doubt this is enough of an emergency to call someone in to fix.

Also, I would assume there is a contract between MN and the other site and that they would be in breach of contract if they just took the link down.

I'm really glad to see this thread. I have been pondering whether to leave this site (and how to phrase a letter to MNHQ) ever since I noticed the ad a couple of days ago.

I have been playing Devil's Advocate for the iwantgreatcare ad in my head, telling myself that Mumsnet must need the money, especially after turning down News International's advertising. But if what HelenMumsnet says is true, about Mumsnet not having been paid, then I am appalled beyond measure. They're promoting that site for practically nowt? Iwantgreatcare must be gaining far more traffic from this deal than Mumsnet!

Is Mumsnet partnering with iwantgreatcare for commercial reasons, or for ideological reasons?

Of course if the dataset gets horribly polluted the site will implode - say if lots of people reviewed Dr Doolittle or randomly added gobbledegook to each and every review on there.

Apparently that's what people did to sabotage ratemyteacher - according to wiki they added loads of listings using the site founder's name describing him as an internet terrorist!

Interesting

It is clearly a rather odd site - and sparrow is right, I was not aware of it (I am a dr if you've not guessed already).
I am on it but without any kind of comment. My DH is not on it . So, somebody bothered to add my details, but did not feel compelled to add a comment. My DH does not 'exist'. For my local area, there are 11 drs on there which is a laughable number; between GP surgeries and hospitals, there must somewhere in the region of 100+ drs here. Of the 11 drs listed only 1 has been commented on, three times; 2 favourable, 1 not so much.

What does all that mean?? A big fat Nothing.

I am not sure why I am typing this, I had and am passing the time until MNHQ are Back, I suppose.

sallysparrow - are you aware that this site was set up by the same bloke that set up DNUK? Just in case you weren't ...

Tech might not actually need to be on site to pull it.

If MN are not getting any financial benefit why would there be a contract? Unless of course they are getting a financial benefit and Helen was referring strictly to a payment specifically for carrying the advert when she said MN were getting nothing.

There would still be a contract even if no money changes hands. It is absurd to suggest that the skeleton staff can just pull a site on the say so of less than 300 mumsnetters in order to wait for the MN Head Honchos to make a firm decision on the Monday. MN is a business after all.

Oddly enough, when this ludicrous site first appeared, Dr Neil Bacon (who set up this site, and also DNUK though he has had nothing to do with them for several years) did not appear on there. He was added. Who by, who knows? Perhaps a colleague or patient, but there is no way to tell as this system requires no registration, log in or other identification. Several negative reviews were posted. Then, strangely, his entry disappeared from the site. I wonder if he's back on there now?

Just pull a site??? An advert surely, unless you know different?

Hi all,
Sorry not to respond earlier - I've been on hols and generally we do like to let feedback threads run for a bit before making any snap judgements, so as to give everyone a chance to have their tuppence worth.

So first, thanks for the feedback. It's pretty clear that the majority of you are not happy with the concept of online patient reviews of doctors.

Our sole intention here, as is pretty much the case with all the content we host/create, was to try to develop something useful for Mumsnetters. As Helen said earlier this is not paid-for advertising and the decision to do this wasn't a commercial one - there is no money involved. We simply thought that folks would find patient reviews useful because it's certainly one of the criteria most folk use when choosing a GP or thinking about a specialist - they ask their friends and acquaintances for recommendations. It's clearly not the only thing you'd think about and you might well be a bit sceptical of some recommendations but it's a valid thing in the mix. IWGC have a very clear and functional platform and an existing database.

Obviously there is a danger of vexatious or malicious reviews and it's a more serious business than a vexatious review of a pushchair. We did talk carefully with IWGC about procedures to prevent this but obviously for the wisdom of crowds to prevail you do need quite a large crowd, which is of course where Mumsnet supposedly comes in...

I do take the points, however, that doctors don't have an equal right of reply because of patient confidentiality and that reputation management isn't a great use of medical professionals' time.

It would be helpful to know/discuss whether it is the idea of a reviews site for health professionals in particular that is the main objection or whether it' is that this site is not sufficiently established as yet to to be reliable/useful?

Also how do folks feel, for instance, about Patient Opinion?

But obviously we are not going to continue with something that Mumsnetters' don't want or find useful because that rather defeats the object, so if folks want us to bring it to an end, we will. (If you love the idea and/or can see a future for it shout now because as it stands judging from the posts on this thread it's not looking like a runner!)

Thanks everyone again for your input.

Do people ask friends and acquaintances for recommendations for GPs? I can understand asking about different GP surgeries, if you have a choice - but I would have thought most people just go down to their nearest surgery and register there, and see whatever GP is available, don't they?
Happy to be corrected on that point.
I certainly would never consider looking up such a website for a review of a doctor, although I expect there are people who would - and they might miss out on a decent doctor because of one negative review (see Pacific's example)

I think most people have made it pretty clear on this thread that they want the association terminated and the ad pulled; and that the biggest reason is that the site is skewed because doctors have no right of reply, being bound by patient confidentiality. So, no other site in the same vein would be any better - completeness of the site is barely an issue against the skewedness of it.

If the site just covered the kind of specialist doctor in areas where people do have a genuine choice (ie mainly ones in private practice offering elective procedures, like cosmetic surgery or maybe routine things people jump NHS queues for, like hernia repairs) then I could just about see it working, but it would need to be a lot better organised and with more robust safeguards against malicious or libellous input.

But most people in this country don't have the opportunity (or the inclination, as far as I can see) to choose individual doctors, so all the site appears to do is offer an outlet for grievances which would be better directed into the official complaint system, where they might actually be resolved, to the benefit of everybody.

I agree. Perhaps in the kind of circles where private health care is the norm, asking friends and family for recommendations would be common. However, given that when I am on the NHS waiting list for a specialist I get what I am given, asking for recommendations would be pointless.

Others have presented a perfectly good case against the site and the same arguments would probably apply to the one in justine's link, so I won't rehash old ground.

It is pretty clear to me that sites like IWGC are designed purely to raise advertising revenue, and have doubtful public benefit.

Thanks for your reply Justine.

My concerns are mainly about this particular website. It has reviews for individual doctors, unlike NHS choices for example, and that makes it much more open to abuse. Especially because, as you rightly say, individual doctors have no right of reply due to rules about confidentiality. I have no particular problem with patients posting reviews about a surgery, it's the individual nature of this that's the problem.

Medicine is very much about individuals talking to other individuals, sometimes you just don't get on with someone, but that doesn't make that person a bad doctor. Also, plenty of people have 'interesting' health beliefs, or agendas of their own, or drug or alcohol problems, or mental health issues, that essentially make a lot of personal reviews meaningless. Good medicine doesn't always mean giving the patient what they want.

This site requires no log on or registration to add doctors or post reviews. There's no proof they are genuine. Nothing at all to stop someone with an axe to grind making trouble.

Most concerningly though is this sites database. It's been around for several years and the database is still rubbish. Why? Theres been plenty of time to sort it. Incomplete. Inaccurate. Just plain wrong. It's got dead doctors, retired doctors and emigrated doctors. But it doesn't list the vast majority of doctors actually in practice. And to be honest, I can't see how it ever can be accurate as an individual doctor might work in several places at once, or move jobs frequently (every few months is usual for junior doctors). I just dont see how it can ever be up date, and therefore, it's pointless.

I have no problem with feedback, done properly. This site surely isn't the way to achieve that though.

I'm really glad you and the mumsnet team are reconsidering this. I really think it's not a partnership that will benefit you so please, please take it down...

I don't like this website and I don't like the premise of rating individuals. Tbh I think NHS choices are already doing a reasonable job of providing a platform for rating practices and institutions so unless you want to team up with them the idea is rather dead in the water for NHS provided healthcare.

Thanks for the explanation, Justine, as to how this decision was made.

The idea of 'reviews' for health professionals might seem admirable, but as some have said, perhaps more applicable for elective procedures such as cosmetic surgery.

As exexpat wrote "all the site appears to do is offer an outlet for grievances which would be better directed into the official complaint system"

I'd fully agree with that, and see iWGC getting significant 'benefit' from your association, while it tarnishes your image, and I'd urge you to disassociate yourselves ASAP, before you start losing members en masse.

this makes me not want to be on MN.

Surely this is why the Patient Advice and Liason Service (PALS) exist)? I've complained and complimented via PALS before, and found it a brilliant organisation.

This online reiewing of doctors seems like someone went "I know a great way we can make some money out of ill and vulnerable people, AND tarnish the NHS even further"

poor show.

Justine said: We simply thought that folks would find patient reviews useful because it's certainly one of the criteria most folk use when choosing a GP or thinking about a specialist

No it isn't.

Justine, what planet have you recently landed on?

Forgot to say welcome back Justine! Bet it's like you never went away...

Take it down.

I'm also wondering what you were thinking as the problems with this website are very obvious.

The more I think about Justine's comment above, the more uncomfortable I am.

Is the assumption that most MNetters go private? Support Cameron's untenable NHS privatisation reforms?

What's going on around here?