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.

MNHQ I don't think the people at IWGC were entirely honest with you.
When they launched in 2008 they asked what doctors on DNUK (the largest online community of doctors in the UK) thought and were roundly and thoroughly lambasted for their utterly awful idea. None of the concerns raised by DNUK members about right of reply, accuracy of their database, risk to professional reputation, clinical governance, or the general lack of ethics involved in the idea were ever satisfactorily answered. And when it came to things like putting people's dead fathers on the database, they claimed to apologise but never did. And then it all went very very quiet until it peeped up here - and still no answers and no apologies...
They're a shady bunch who I honestly don't think care about patients at all - if they did they'd want to give doctors a chance to reply and fix things. They don't. That review they showed you of a doctor answering HAS to be a mock up because a REAL doctor who answered with those sorts of details on an open website would be struck off. They are lying to you.

What FireflyRae said. Not one single doctor who posted on the DNUK threads about iWGC had a good thing to say about it. Many concerns were raised with regard to malicious complainers, the inaccuracy of the database, listing of dead/retired/emigrated doctors, lack of a proper right to reply within the bounds of confidentiality - none were answered properly and until I saw the link on mumsnet I assumed the site had quietly combusted.

There are several, appropriate channels through which dissatisfied patients can raise concerns or complain about their management. There are also far better ways to compliment a doctor on good or outstanding care - a simple letter of thanks would do far more good than a positive rating on this site.

I wouldn't leave MN over this as it fills a clear need (and I have had some great advice on here) although I agree with all who have said it cheapens the brand. I will unsubscribe from all the advertising (newsletters) if the association continues.

I must say it does seem pretty shabby NMHQ. It seems to be universally loathed - I think you should drop it

I did snort at Justine's comment "one of the criteria most folk use when choosing a GP or thinking about a specialist". Have you been on a waiting list recenty Justine?

Thanks for the reply Justine.

As thumbwitch said higher up, don't most people just go into their local GP surgery and register there? That's certainly what I did. Anyway, according to iwbc there is only 1 GP at my surgery, when in fact it is one if the biggest in Wales!

When I was researching fertility specialists I came across a negative review of the clinic we later visited. I ignored that review, however, in favour of a positive account from a friend (her little boy bring the evidence of the clinic's success ). I trusted my friend far more than a random Internet poster.

I was also alarmed to read that users can post without logging in - so anyone can write anything without it being checked at all? Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Where I work families are given a questionnaire to complete after discharge. The same issue came up again and again (facilities rather than staff related) so this was brought to the attention of the lead consultant, who has taken it higher. If all the families had taken that issue online, would the consequences have been the same? Far better to complain to someone who can actually do something than someone anonymous IMO!

Jioning Linerunner on the recent landing from which planet stance.

There is something odd about such an expereinced site owner not noticing the issue of michievous/malcious posting when it cones to user generated content, particularly where the need to register and create new email addresses is not required in order to make multiple posts.

Even when we as a family have gone private (DH's hernia op, my ob/gynae problems) we have never used friends or a review site - we asked our gp for his/her recommendations - they are the ones with the medical knowledge after all!

Ultimately this isn't ever going to be used by someone looking for information (IMO) - only ever by someone who feels they have a grievance and wants to tell the world.

I'm sure that others have heard this too, but in another life I was told that unhappy customers are nine times more likely to tell others about their bad experience than happy customers are to share a positive.

FWIW Justine, I just searched for my GP and he was listed in a practice and at an address which changed well before 2008...

It seems to me that even if the premise of the site were something we agreed with, the inaccuracy of the database makes it at best a waste of space, at worst, an accident waiting to happen for MN

If MN were my brand, I would not want it associated with this one little bit

I have PMI and I would not be looking on an unvalidated site to figure out which doctor to use. You'd have to be quite silly to base a life changing decision on the random rantings on the aggrieved or enamoured.

Thanks for the response Justine.

I do hope MNHQ take on board what is being said remove their partnership with that site.

Morning all.

Justine, it has all been said, and in some detail. Just registering my dislike of the association.

MN has always been the sum of its' members knowledge, goodwill, and wit. It transcends (and stomps all over) the political spectrum, and gives a voice and guidance to many who would be otherwise floundering (possibly even many of the disenfranchised).

This other website has no similar altruisitic core, and is always going to be the servant of the petulant, the vitriolic and the malicious. It provides a platform for those who feel they have the right to seek retribution in any circumstances. An eye for an eye? The idea that that was the best cartharsis went away with the end of capital punishment.

Give them the letters page of the Daily Mail, a thread here that can be self-moderated as has always worked in the past, or let them create their own way of wreaking havoc on the lives of unsuspecting health care professionals; at least then they would be held legally accountable, to the same laws as everyone else. But don't make Mumsnet, and by default, all of us, their bedfellows.

To think that this is in any way a positive step is naive, and I am surprised and unnerved by your response earlier. None of us own you or the other members of the team; it is our fault if we expect you to exactly mirror our thoughts on every issue. But it is astonishing to think that you could ever, as the founders and holders of Mumsnet, have thought of this as A Good Thing.

Jackaroo

iWGC gain great credibility and infinite truckloads of free advertising from this partnership, MN tarnish their reputation by promoting and validating a bad idea, shoddily executed.

Justine just out of interest, who approached who to initially discuss this 'partnership'? Did MN first approach iWGC? I'm thinking not...

And what fastweb said re Justine/MN not seeing immediately how the site's so open to abuse from its posters.

To answer one of your questions, Patient Opinion looks like exactly the same kind of useless, unhelpful nonsense and I would not expect MN to be associated with that either.

I just can't think of any time that I have discussed choosing a doctor with friends or family. In some places there might be several GP practices with space for all comers and no fixed catchment area...but when I moved to my present area everywhere was full and I was allocated a GP by the health authority. Likewise when I needed a scan, or my children needed minor operations, we were allocated a consultant. That is how healthcare works in the UK so I can see little point in the concept, even if it weren't so open to abuse.

@LineRunner

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?

Planet suffolk as it happens. Ok I'll rephrase - people who live in cities and large towns (which is most of us) will often ask around before choosing their GP because there's often more than one option - and many older people will choose where they actually choose to live according to the reputation of doctor's surgery. They will also often ask around about the specialist they've been referred to, or search on the internet for information about them. The obvious parallel is schools although obviously folks don't go to quite the same lengths.

Anyway I'm really not arguing the case - as said we are no going to continue with something that folks don't want - I was merely trying to give you some understanding of our reasoning for doing this in the face of charges of MNHQ greed!

I do actually believe that at some point in the future crowd sourced opinions via the internet will be a way that pretty much all of us evaluate professionals (health and otherwise) but maybe I'm just nuts .

Justine!!

"many older people will choose where they actually choose to live according to the reputation of doctor's surgery."

I'm sorry but I think that is utter tosh.

"The obvious parallel is schools although obviously folks don't go to quite the same lengths."

Of course they do - they go to much further, more extreme lengths. People do most definitley decide where to live based on schools. They move house based on schools. They get sent to prison for lying about where they live so they can get into certain schools!!

Planet Suffolk is clearly a different planet to Planet Essex

Either that or you've believed IWGC's publicity!!

I agree with what justine is saying, i did ask some friends when i moved in to a new area about drs sugerys (there were 4), but it was after i had registered with a dr sugery and wasnt happy with the care. (friend said it was the best in the area ) but i didnt ask about specific dr's.

and also agree my nan wont move out of her house for various reasons but one of them i 'i like my dr, he is a very nice man'

but maybe something more focused on establishments may be better rather than drs themselves. in my case i dont often get to see the specialist ive been refered to, just one of his team. so searching for the dr would be pointless, but deciding weather i wanted to go to worcester or reddich with some reviews would be helpful iyswim

Well Curryspice, with the greatest of respect, I beg to differ - it's certainly a really big consideration for the older people I know - not least because in lots of areas of the country they feel that doctors' surgeries don't welcome them. Maybe we should ask on Gransnet about it.

@addictediam

I agree with what justine is saying, i did ask some friends when i moved in to a new area about drs sugerys (there were 4), but it was after i had registered with a dr sugery and wasnt happy with the care. (friend said it was the best in the area ) but i didnt ask about specific dr's.

and also agree my nan wont move out of her house for various reasons but one of them i 'i like my dr, he is a very nice man'

but maybe something more focused on establishments may be better rather than drs themselves. in my case i dont often get to see the specialist ive been refered to, just one of his team. so searching for the dr would be pointless, but deciding weather i wanted to go to worcester or reddich with some reviews would be helpful iyswim

Yes I think that's a fair point addictediam.

i should add my nan is 85 and really should be in a home!

That's a really good point addictediam. I have been with the same diabetes clinic for nearly 10 years. I have not once seen my specialist of record but some member of the team.

So searching for him would tell me nothing about the care I would/am receiving.

You always hear of people moving to get their child into a good school; it happens all the time and is a standard consideration for those who can afford it. I've never once heard of older people doing this to get a good GP! Not saying no-one ever has, but it's certainly not anywhere near as big a thing as the schools thing...

Well I stand corrected Justine while still thinking it's tosh

It has never been a deal breaker for any old people I know. Would an elderly person really move house / chose a house because they didn't like their doctor? Wouldn't they just change doctors?

Anyway, it seems like this site is riddled with mistakes and not worth the paper it's not written anyway so if you want people to base their entire decision on where to live on its information then I think that is a VERY bad idea!!

@CornishMade

You always hear of people moving to get their child into a good school; it happens all the time and is a standard consideration for those who can afford it. I've never once heard of older people doing this to get a good GP! Not saying no-one ever has, but it's certainly not anywhere near as big a thing as the schools thing...

Yep I agree it's not as big a thing, as said. But out of interest, would folks also object to a schools reviews on MN (not individual teachers - I think I know the answer to that!)

Do you mean an MN-based schools review section, Justine? Or a link to a schools review website similar to the one currently under discussion?

Hold on a minute, you said 10 minutes ago that people didn't go to such lengths with schools!

I personally would welcome an independent review of schools from a parents view point (as opposed to Ofsted) but not if it is merely an outlet for discontented rantings