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.

So MNHQ, what will it take for this site to be removed?

Personally I don't like review sites, as everyone is so different. If you look at the reviews of any product, some people will rave about it, while others say it's disastrous. That isn't helpful, as you just don't know who to believe, without knowing the individuals concerned.

The only way it would work would be if patients posted their own details too, so people could assess whether they could be like-minded individuals. For example, someone could write "I am a dirty old man and I wanted to get my female GP to examine my testicles for a cheap thrill every week. She refused and told me to see a different (male) Dr. What a bitch, she clearly doesn't care about her patients, avoid her at all costs folks, because she won't provide a semi-prostitute service for you".

OK that may sound ridiculous, but there really are patients like that (as a Dr of 20 years I know this). Would any of you want to trust their judgement?

Justine you are agreeing with the valid points NOW, but not so much when this idea was floated internally at MN, where I cannot immagine such a wealth of experience regarding user generated content could have so spectaculary failed to note the inherent defects of the concept and the design.

I'm finding it very hard to accept that the points made on this thread about...

1. the dubious accuracy of anonomous info from non registered users being collected and shared.

2. the impossibility of professionals having a right of reply

....did not crop up at any point while this partnership was being brokered. So I don't put a great deal of stock in the idea that then points made on this thread are massively clever insights that did not occur to anybody at MNtowers and are the cause of any post partnership scales plopping off eyes.

MN is based on user generatrated content, with the success of this site it follows that you and your team must be by now quite expert in the ins and outs, ups and down's, pros and cons, headaches and hiccups of any site based on the same.

I don't think anybody here could possibly teach you, or the others involved in the day to day running of MN, how to suck eggs when It comes to UGC and its pitfalls.

So I think it is most likely the issues raised here also occurred to MN PTB, but were not given any significant wieght when making the choice to undertake this partnership.

Ergo it comes accross as discontent from your users driving any willingness to drop the partnership rather than a fundamental agreement with the points made.

Particularly since you still appear enmoured with the concept of professional medical services being reviewed as though they were dishwasher tabs, or a hotel room and can't seem to comprehend the inherant ethical and accuracy issues that go hand in hand with the parasitical nature of a money making venture based on using public services as its host.

Hello everyone the ads will come down today.
Thanks for all the input.

Thank you

Thank you Justine.

Super. Thanks!

That actually brings up another anecdote about people being unfair to GPs.

Once upon a time, there was a woman in a great deal of pain. She and her doctor had found some tablets that worked on the pain. Good, eh? However, the woman's adult daughter was horrified, because the daughter had read that the medication could be addictive with long-term use. She wanted her mother taken off it, forthwith! I think she may evenhave tried to complain about through official channels. These days, she would definitely post an abusive review on the internet
.
Many years later, that daughter is on the same medication for a different long-term condition that causes pain. Her attitude to pain, and how "you should just live with it" has QUITE changed.

Conversely, sometimes people have entirely valid concerns about their parents' care, which need to be officially reported. Not buried on this site.

great outcome, have followed this frmo the beginning.

Three cheers for our NHS.

Thanks Justine.

Thank you

Thank you.

Thank goodness the ads are coming down. I was just girding my loins to post that I'd have to boycott MN (sobs) until they did, but you've pre-empted me. Good call.
Declaration of interest: doctor's wife who has seen some of the lies and vitriol directed at DH when a patient has disliked his decisions

Hurrah - thanks for listening

You're taking it down already?! I thought it would take much longer than that to discuss it fully!

Great! Thanks! Seems a very short post to say this though, no explanation, nothing... Be nice to know what swayed the decision or how it came about.

We are never happy are we :o

Great decision though!

Sorry if I missed it, but was there a reason why MumsNetters weren't canvassed for opinion before entering into the partnership, like we were with McDonalds etc, it just seems strange that a site as savvy as MN didn't think there would be such a strong opinion about rating medical staff amongst its members ?

@InnocentRedhead

Great! Thanks! Seems a very short post to say this though, no explanation, nothing... Be nice to know what swayed the decision or how it came about.

We are never happy are we :o

Great decision though!

Hi Innocent - I think I've said it all on the thread really - it's not MNHQs opinion of the potential value of something that counts but yours (and Mumsnetters in general). Only reason I really entered into the debate was to fully understand the objection for future reference and to counter any claims of gross venality on our part . But as a rule we won't ever pursue something that folks don't want or find useful because it's not what we're here for.

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.

I'm really pleased that the ad is coming down, and the point raised above is one of the main reasons I think IWGC is fundamentally flawed: I may ask friends & acquaintances for recommendations when choosing a GP etc, but that's because I know my friends and acquaintances and I know whether their judgment is good or not.

One of my friends was telling me happily a couple of days ago how pleased she is with her GP because she wanted Valium and she got it - despite having been treated for addiction to Valium a few years ago. That's her idea of a good GP, but I know she's fucking batshit so I wouldn't listen to her recommendations when choosing a bar of soap, let alone a doctor. With a site like IWGC you have absolutely no idea who you're talking to and therefore no reason to trust their judgments. It's a stupid site. And now I'm off to troll the fuck out of it :)

@wigglesrock

Sorry if I missed it, but was there a reason why MumsNetters weren't canvassed for opinion before entering into the partnership, like we were with McDonalds etc, it just seems strange that a site as savvy as MN didn't think there would be such a strong opinion about rating medical staff amongst its members ?

Quite simply because it wasn't a commercial partnership and we didn't think of it as anything other than providing a useful service/ useful content.
With Macdonalds we were aware that it potentially controversial and unpopular. With IWGC we were not.

That's great justice and I am REALLY impressed with your responsiveness

Bet your holiday feels like a distant memory now eh?

Thank you for taking down the adds. I know that MN is a business, and it makes sense that you would look to expand by using the assets you have (1000s of users) to form partnerships with other companies or start/buy new online services/sites of your own. This particular 'partnership' was ill considered.

If you want to review medical services, it has to be done by looking at the clinic/practice/hospital rather than the individual doctor. Doctors cannot defend themselves without breaking confidentiality. If you believe that, particularly with the elderly, GP services are a major factor in deciding where to live, it would make much more sense to look at the practice anyway.

The individual doctor does not decide the policies that have the biggest impact on your experience of/ access to medical care. The surgery policy does.

1. What is the surgery's method of ensuring appointments are available daily? How do they manage the appointment system?

Some surgeries still book out all appointments well in advance, so if you are ill and need to see a doctor you might have to wait 7 days +. Most make exceptions for emergencies.

Some hold back a few appointments until surgery opening time. That usually means if you phone at 8:31 the phone is engaged and they're all gone.

The best practice I have seen has a rapid access emergency walk in clinic run by a practioner nurse and one doctor in the mornings (as well as other measures)

Some surgeries release more appointments the afternoon before as well. So if you phone at 3pm there are regular (non emergency) appointments available for the next day.

Different people need different things. If you're working an early evening surgery and 8am appointments would make life easier. If you have chronic health issues rapid access might be the crucial factor.

What is the calling system? Is it clear and simple? Does the doctor come and fetch you from the waiting area or is there an electronic board or a buzzer and ticket system? It make little difference to me but for those with eg hearing problems or the very elderly it might make a big difference.

2. What is the surgery policy on home visits? Who covers their out of hours care?

If you have serious health issues can you get a doctor to visit? Some places still take requests for home visits for certain conditions/patients.

If you are ill/ have a sick child/ sick partner, what happens if you phone the surgery at 1 minute past closing? Will you be directed to a walk in clinic at the local hospital - if you have no transport and are in serious pain not good. Will you have to phone NHS direct? If you are very lucky you could be in one of the areas where local doctors have grouped together to provide their own out of hours service.

3. Precriptions

Many people need repeat prescriptions. Phone requests aren't accepted. Some places have systems where you can request a repeat on line. Some have on site pharmacies that will (if you fill out a form) chase up the surgery so it will be there when you go to collect it. Some pharmacies will actually deliver. How good is the onsite pharmacy?

4. Staff

Not critique on individuals, but how many doctors do they have? Some people like smaller surgeries where they will know the person they're getting. If you just want an appointment with a GP a bigger one would be a better bet. Also if you always want to see a female doctor then a surgery with three would make more sense than one with one. Older doctors and those with young children might not be in surgery Mon-Fri. How many of the GPs are full time? If you have a surgery of 7 doctors the chances are you'll find one that you can get on with. If there are 3/4 with one part time then you might have less chance.

5. Services/Clinics

What does the surgery run? What days? The asthma clinic, diabetes clinic etc. For some people these are essentials.

That would give people a lot more useful information. If you really want review let them review the surgery without naming the individual doctor. Whether people get on with an individual doctor often has little bearing on whether I or you would. The surgery experience is different. If you have a hellish time getting an appointment or a repeat sorted, if you find that you can't get to see the doctor you want to and have no continuity of care, those are likely to be universal issues that a site might actually be a good medium for airing.

Sorry about the gross venality thing

As for private health care or specialists, I've always asked the doctor referring/other doctors, 'If it were your wife/husband/child who would you go to?' Or, 'Who would be considered to be the most experienced doctor in this field/in this area?' It also works for veterinary specialists.

Thank God common sense has prevailed. Glad the link is going/has gone.