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.

Oh I dunno, one day you might like something [hopeful]

I once bought internet security software through an ad on here. That was a good thing. And I have resisted the urge to kick off over GLTC's gendered lunch stuff in the ad because it's bringing in money the site needs and though I'm not keen on it most MNers aren't bothered by it.

Because you listen you probably get more shit than most sites. I'd imagine that you turn down a huge amount of profitable adverts and links because MN users would gather pitchforks get annoyed.

Thank you for dropping the link, and for a lovely site. Sorry for going batshit about it.

@DiazePam

They are moderated actually - we explored that issue in some detail.

How, please?

I asked them this question 3 years ago and never got an answer. Genuinely interested to know.

Certainly at that time the moderation when they were informed of dead doctors being listed and other inaccuracies didn't seem to exist in any sort of meaningful way.

Unless you reviewed Dr Neil Bacon of course, then it disappeared instantly...

When we went through this, they said they took pains to look at complaints and take into account who'd submitted the review, whether it was hugely out of kilter with other reviews - all the kind of behind the scenes stuff you'd expect a decent moderator to do tbh. Obviously they didn't moderate brilliantly in your case though because they didn't reply. Something we would never do. Well, not often.

Thanks for listening Justine

@MinimallyNarkyPuffin

Oh I dunno, one day you might like something [hopeful]

I once bought internet security software through an ad on here. That was a good thing. And I have resisted the urge to kick off over GLTC's gendered lunch stuff in the ad because it's bringing in money the site needs and though I'm not keen on it most MNers aren't bothered by it.

Because you listen you probably get more shit than most sites. I'd imagine that you turn down a huge amount of profitable adverts and links because MN users would gather pitchforks get annoyed.

Thank you for dropping the link, and for a lovely site. Sorry for going batshit about it.

Aw that's nice NarkyPuffin. Thanks.

As an aside and given that one of the complaints about IWGC is the lack of a right to reply we would be grateful if folks would lay off Neil Bacon. Clearly there is some water under some bridges and I don't think rehashing whatever it is here is particularly fruitful. So given that he's not here to defend himself nor is likely to come on here, I don't think it's fair for folk to be casting nasturtiums please?
Thanks

Thank you - to MNHQ for listening to us, but mainly for the overwhelming support from pretty much everyone who has posted!

Couple more comments though. As far as the comparison to trip advisor is concerned - as others have said trip advisor is rating a service industry where the whole point of the service being reviewed is that people are happy with a service that they are choosing to pay for. I can at times make several people either shout at me or cry in the space of one shift - advising parents to stop smoking as they are harming their child's lungs, admitting babies who I think may be seriously ill although the mum wants to go home to care for her other kids, telling the mum who's new baby has lost 15% of his birth weight and is severely dehydrated that yes, I will do everything I can to get breast feeding established but in the meantime the child must have an alternative form of hydration.... all these things upset and annoy people but are in the best interests of my patient - it's not my job to keep people happy, it's my job to do what needs doing to keep people well (but to always attepmt to communicate what I'm doing and why, so even when people don't like what I'm saying, they understand the need for it - I'm quite nice really!!)
But also, trip advisor rates a hotel, not a person. A bad review may say 'the rooms were filthy and the breakfast upset my stomach'. It wouldn't say 'Lucy Smith the chambermaid did not clean my room adequately and the food cooked by Peter Davies the chef upset my stomach' - so the hotel gets feedback (and the people running the hotel may know where the problem lies and tell Lucy Smith to get her act together and make sure Peter Davies is washing his hands) but the negative review will not follow Peter Davies and Lucy Smith for the rest of their professional career.

Also, as for IWGC claiming not to have had any messages pointing out inaccuracies, maybe people didn't feel like doing the website's research for them - there are numerous inaccuracies pointed out on this thread alone.

Just out of interest, Justine, did IWGC tell you anything about the way the medical profession in general feels about this site?

Oh, and as for the link posted where the 'doctor' has 'replied' - I really really hope if this is real that this doctor is not a member of the same indemnity insurance group as I am, as my fees are high enough, don't fancy them being bumped up to pay her legal fees when she is sued for breaching confidentiality for posting details about a specific consultation on a public website!

There is nothing stopping Neil Bacon from coming here to defend his site though, is there? He does have a right to reply and you would think, having set up a link with mumsnet he would be keeping an eye on the site and seeing what people think of it, not just reaping the benefits of the increased traffic through his site? Pretty one-sided partnership otherwise I would say - it would have been nice for MNHQ if he had joined in on this thread to answer some of the questions asked on how the site works or otherwise....

Well have read whole thread and just have one thing to add. Justine? It's rich tea obviously to go with your

sallysparrow157 - yes, he would have the right to reply but given the association "is no more" it's perhaps easier to drop the pitchforks issue!

Thanks for getting it sorted Justine.

Humble pie and French Fries for supper?

Thank you

Just came back to check up and see the thread has moved on Thanks mnet

The majority of mumsnetters seem to be exceedingly arrogant. I don't know how Justine et al put up with us

Commercial site, commercial decisions. Some of them will in retrospect be poor but I applaud MNHQ for having the guts to say 'ah well that sucked' and stop going down a road which will have bumps in. :)

Please don't agree to 'run things by the majority' in future. You'll kill commercial confidences and also it'll be really limiting on your revenue streams. Which you will need to make the site EVEN BETTER and fix it when I break it

hello
First post here - an experienced mumsnetter told me about this discussion.
I'm a GP, and I have been really worried about the commercial uses this kind of information is being gathered for. Iwantgreatcare is a profit driven enterprise which is seeking to make inroads into commissioning. See here: info.iwantgreatcare.org/information-for-healthcare-com/. Neil Bacon responded to my criticisms of his company in the BMJ; my bit is here www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1033.full and his is here www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1030.full

Currently in GP we ask 50 patients each (that's 250 patients in total) who are seen consecutively, to fill out a feedback form. This means we ask a good unbaised sample of people for views - not just people who are motivated out of very good or very bad experience to complain. This is analysed and acted on, as are any compliments or complaints or suggestions. Anonymous feedback isn't always that useful - I like to try and make things better if they have gone wrong. I can't if I don't have a clue where the feedback was.

best wishes
margaret mccartney

Well done

Thanks Justine and all at MNHQ. Good call.

Excellent decision - thanks Justine.

Oh, and shortbread fingers. Obviously :)

I think I want great care is a fantastic website which allows patients to make a more informed choice about their doctors. I was very unhappy with the help and advice I was given by a gp who failed to make a key diagnosis and have been really pleased to be able to give feedback on the I want great care website on this gp. Doctors have so much power over our lives and this website does a little bit to help redress the balance.

Reply to margaret mccartney
This is a typical example of gp arrogance. Just how honest do you think your patients are going to be in giving feedback which isn't anonymous when they are entirely dependent on you to get their medication?!
I want great care allows patients the freedom to give feedback anonymously without gps looking over their shoulder.

But the GP has no right of reply because of patient confidentiality, so you can write whatever you want, no matter how true it is (and the conversation above shows how many fake reviews there are.)

Anyway, the fact that you have revived a Zombie thread after so long suggests that you might be a mate of Neil Bacon doing a bit of sneaky advertising...

I can't stand this authoritarian view that "silly patients" can't make informed judgements about their doctor. Of course having a pleasant and caring manner helps but for most patients the most important thing is the gp's medical ability. In my case I rated my gp entirely on her failure to make a crucial diagnosis, not what she was like as a person.

Never heard of Neil Bacon let alone met him

Of course patients can make informed judgements about their doctors! What a silly idea that they can't.

What this website does, however, is allow people, who may or may not be patients, to write whatever they want about a doctor, without giving the doctor any right of reply. There are no checks and balances.

And if you did feel that your GP missed a diagnosis, did you just write this on a website? Or did you pursue a proper complaints procedure where the issues (and deficiencies if there were any) could be dealt with properly?