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.

@CurrySpice

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!!

Yes I agree that the quality of the data is not good enough as it stands the idea was to help build it up into something useful - for the wisdom of crowds to work you need a crowd. What attracted us was that it's very functional and easy to use.

But as said I accept that the points raised on this thread about right to reply and reputation management as valid criticisms and a site that reviewed practices rather than individuals would therefore be preferable.

Justine - I don't think a general "schools review" section would be useful.

FWIW, I have entered into long conversations on MN about Paris schools, and my DD's school in particular, when individual posters have been looking to move to Paris. I have quite often met up with MNers who visit Paris before moving here and have shared masses of relevant information with them on the basis of their individual needs and desires. There is not much useful general information that I could give any MNer about schools here - whether it suits an individual family or child is something that families need to work out for themselves. I don't think a general "schools review" would be helpful.

I do agree that some people do ask for recommendations as to GPs surgeries when they move - I have done it the last two times I have moved. (And my parents don't want to move because they are hypochrondriacs really like their doctor.)

However, both times I asked friends who were medical professionals and were familiar with the options. I would never have used iWGC or similar because of all the problems listed above. The wisdom of the crowd may be useful in buying a washing machine but it is much harder to be objective about a personal encounter with a doctor.

The thing is, even if 'crowd sourced' information is the way of the future, it won't make any difference to the actual provision of services.

Take my uncle as a piece of useless anecdote. His surgery is shockingly shit. An MRI referral went missing between the surgery and the hospital 3 times, the results twice. He regularly has to wait 8 weeks for an appointment. The surgery is only open until 4.30pm three times a week, and doesn't open at all on a Friday.

But he can't change anything because every other surgery in the county town in which he lives has a full list and one of them uses the exact same doctors anyway.

The majority of the UK don't live in cities. We have little or no choice of surgeries.

Appropriate feedback already exists on the NHS website.

@CurrySpice

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

Eh? No I didn't.

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

On any review site you'll always get ranting individuals. The idea is that a large crowd will drown out those individuals with individual beefs and a fair picture will emerge...

I agree a crowd is great.

But you have to ensure that wild opinions can be refuted and it needs to be moderated

Take tripadvisor for example.

All posts vetted before posting, all reviewers must register and give RL details before they can post a review, and hoteliers have a full right of reply on site

So I think it can work and it's a good idea in theory but because of confidentiality and the ability of one malicious nutter to destroy a doctor's reputation without any come back, makes this very different

"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."

Surely there is a massive difference between asking around- i.e. asking the opinion of people you know- and relying on the opinion of a sensational internet site.

Before I accept somebody's verdict on a doctor I would like to know whether that person is sane or delusional, whether they are a drug addict, whether they have a specific axe to grind and whether they have good judgment. And I would suspect the judgment of anyone who posts on a site like this.

but it's a red herring, because it doesn't matter what the intent of the site, the reality is different. Health care is different. Doctors are different from lawyers, and engineers, and librarians, and teachers, and.. just about everyone, because they are held to a different, career-deciding standard. They have no right of reply. THATS the difference.

and seriously, how many "older" people get to choose where they live next, against this kind of criteria. It might make them stay put - as with addictediam's nan - but it wouldn't be a reason for them to move; well not in the way their financial circumstances would. "Most" old people wouldn't have the finances to choose on any terms other than cost.

Again, straw poll of "old people I know" doesn't seem a valid way to make a decision when your whole brand is affected.

@Thumbwitch

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?

Would be interested in all thoughts...

I often consult TripAdvisor, though I never consult it exclusively - before booking a hotel I usually cross reference about six or seven trusted sources (and I am a seasoned traveller and live among many seasoned travellers). However, a holiday is not nearly as involving a decision as a school - I research my holidays carefully, but not nearly as carefully as I research the schools I send my children to!

Justine was that "Eh? No I didn't" in the middle of my quote aimed at me?

Because you said at 8:19 "The obvious parallel is schools although obviously folks don't go to quite the same lengths."

@Jackaroo

but it's a red herring, because it doesn't matter what the intent of the site, the reality is different. Health care is different. Doctors are different from lawyers, and engineers, and librarians, and teachers, and.. just about everyone, because they are held to a different, career-deciding standard. They have no right of reply. THATS the difference.

Yes I take that point.

@Jackaroo

and seriously, how many "older" people get to choose where they live next, against this kind of criteria. It might make them stay put - as with addictediam's nan - but it wouldn't be a reason for them to move; well not in the way their financial circumstances would. "Most" old people wouldn't have the finances to choose on any terms other than cost.

It's a factor I think when people move house. I didn't say it's what causes people to move house.

@Jackaroo

Again, straw poll of "old people I know" doesn't seem a valid way to make a decision when your whole brand is affected.

Well it's worked Ok up to now [kidding] .

@CurrySpice

Justine was that "Eh? No I didn't" in the middle of my quote aimed at me?

Because you said at 8:19 "The obvious parallel is schools although obviously folks don't go to quite the same lengths."

Ah I see. Yes, what I meant was "obviously people don't go to the same lengths with doctors as with schools"

Oh I see - I misunderstood. I thought you meant the opposite from what you did!

Ain't the English language great! :o

@CurrySpice

Oh I see - I misunderstood. I thought you meant the opposite from what you did!

Ain't the English language great! :o

Quite probably my rendition of it that caused the confusion.

So basically despite all the points made here about the dubious quality of anonomous comment and the lack of a right to reply, thanks to confidentiality issues, of the professionals concerned, not to mention the site owner's difficulty in not over egging his status as a (former) doctor, you still think it is a good idea ?

Taking it down would just be an act of keeping the membership happy ?

I expect you to want to make money out of your business, so if it had been a business deal that on reflection was a bad fit with the demographic, then no harm done.

But I'm less comfortable with an alturistic desire to promote said site because you believe it to be accurate, informative, useful and ethical.

@fastweb

So basically despite all the points made here about the dubious quality of anonomous comment and the lack of a right to reply, thanks to confidentiality issues, of the professionals concerned, not to mention the site owner's difficulty in not over egging his status as a (former) doctor, you still think it is a good idea ?

Taking it down would just be an act of keeping the membership happy ?

I expect you to want to make money out of your business, so if it had been a business deal that on reflection was a bad fit with the demographic, then no harm done.

But I'm less comfortable with an alturistic desire to promote said site because you believe it to be accurate, informative, useful and ethical.

I'm not sure you're reading what I've said!
I've agreed with the very valid points made about the limitations wrt to right to reply and the current quality of the database. I've said I don't think the database issue is insurmountable - it's a question of more input - but that the right to reply issue possibly is, and thus a review site for institutions might be better.
I've said that I think the principle of crowd sourced reviews of professional services will become an popular in time but I could be wrong. But that what I think isn't actually relevant because because the whole point is to be useful and so yes if the membership unanimously (or pretty much unanimously) don't want something then we won't do it.

Adding my vote to removing it, please Justine - for all the many reasons already listed.

I would have to agree with fastweb. No site that rates doctors is going to be tenable and I am not exactly sure what MN is trying to achieve with being so certain they want to be part of such a thing, whether it is the current one or a different one.

Doctors are not holiday villas. And they never will be.

I do live in a city and while I was given a list of GP surgeries who were taking new patients when I moved, I had no friends in the area so just picked one. I certainly wouldn't have used such a website, if one had been available, as I wouldn't trust random strangers. Heck, I don't even trust reviews about products I am thinking of buying!

And I, and my family, have seen many many specialist and we were given no choice in who we saw.

"I've said that I think the principle of crowd sourced reviews of professional services will become popular in time"

The trouble with doing a doctor version of TripAdvisor in the UK is that choice of doctor is really very limited if you stay strictly within the confines of the NHS, so patients don't have much experience. Other health systems allow for a lot more second opinions and market-based competition and patients are a lot more clued up.

wouldnt a schools review section end up the same way...with people pointing fingers at specific teachers they didnt like because they told little tommy off etc?
or would there be things in place to make sure that it was about the schools overall performance and not a specific persons?

Justine: 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 .

Ah yes that would be true but the only site which has done this to any great success is TripAdvisor and frankly, they have much better systems in place to edit out the bollocks. And if you have a crap holiday it's a crap holiday and you get over it. Bugger up a kidney transplant on the other hand......... :(

I'm happy to have a book recommended on Amazon, get it and think it's crap. Each to their own etc. There is a low risk associated with making a poor choice. One might say well a doctor would not be practicing if he was that bad Harold Shipman for example but perhaps the time lag in picking up poor practice does not support this.

Without wishing to go all daily mail on you, it is implausible to suggest that by a group of parents building up a database, preferences of the over sixties will be guided. It's like asking an 18-25 holiday rep to organise a Saga holiday

Also, perhaps it's better we know no more than we know now. You can already look up the death stats of a doctor, you can already look up whether they are have disciplinary proceedings at the GMC against them. You can even go along to their surgery and sit in the waiting room and ask the person next to you whether they are a trollish megalomaniac and get exactly the same type of responses you'd find on the site you are expounding.

I base my decisions about doctors on bedside manner, professional record and gut instinct frankly. You are saying 'don't use those, use the opinions of others' which are just as likely to be wrong (in fact more so as they are based on say-so.)

Want to do something good with health - well there's a plethora of insurance companies offering PMI who would partner with you for family health insurance and you demographic are more likely to go for it IMHO. In fact PM me and I'll tell you about the one we are with, they are bloody marvellous and not too pricey but moreover they are very, very ethical.

good decision to remove, but do agree a review site for institutions would be helpful. i'd have no problem reviewing, for example, parking at my surgery, disabled access, general waiting time, whether one can get an appointment on the day if you have a child, that sort of thing. but for individual docs, well i think that's crazy.

i did, however, change from a surgery that i wasn't that tickled by to this newer one purely on the recommendation of my friends, however, that's definitely how it's done where i live. EVERYTHING is subject to playground review. if you think MN is bad...

btw tripadvisor, despite having editors and systems in place, is currently being taken to court because of its claims of offering independent, unbiased advice - precisely because the 'crowd' cannot really be vetted.

Justine - you're misunderstanding the whole basis of "the wisdom of crowds".

The basic premise is that while no one individual will judge every situation correctly, if enough people are asked for their best estimate then the average will be pretty close to correct provided that people's views are equally likely to be skewed up as well as skewed down.

The usual example given is guessing the number of sweets in a jar at a fair. Some people will guess too high, some too low, probably no-one will be correct, but the average guess will be pretty close.

It breaks down when either views are biased one way or the other (as has been pointed out repeatedly here, review sites such as this are many times more likely to get complaints rather than praise down to simple human nature) and/or where "group think" makes people ignore sometimes overwhelming evidence to the contrary in favor of following the direction of the crowd (again the usual example given is 9/11 where literally thousands of people in security services around the world, some of whom had more than enough information to understand the danger, failed to act).

So there is absolutely no possibility that a site such as IWGC could self-correct through the wisdom of crowds. It's one of the basic scenarios where the wisdom of crowds breaks down.

And all of the above is entirely ignoring the separate but very importand issues of (a) no right of reply for HCP; and (b) the fact that in any case opinions are subjective rather than factual.