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.

I would have thought that the mumsnet people would have had a bit more savvy than to do this.

mumsnet is doing more than just advertising the site - if you click through to the faqs you get this:

"The Mumsnet and iWantGreatCare partnership

Our aim is to create the UK's largest, most popular, user-generated guide to care. We're starting with doctors and hospitals and then plan to widen it to all types of care.
What is iWantGreatCare?

IWGC allows the public to rate and review the care they receive. Founded in 2008, it already includes thousands of reviews submitted by patients and carers about the care they have received from both NHS and private doctors and hospitals.

The standard and style of care delivered by different doctors and hospitals varies and this can make it difficult to decide which doctor and/or hospital to choose for yourself or your family.

Mumsnet's definition is 'By parents, for parents' and so it makes sense for us to team up with iWantGreatCare (IWGC) to ensure Mumsnetters' experiences and opinions can help to provide valuable information for anyone having to select care, whether by a GP or hospital specialist.

How will the partnership work?

IWGC aims to create a user-generated directory of Mumsnetter reviews. As the volume of reviews grows, location specific reviews will be provided to Mumsnet Local pages.

Extending the partnership to iWantGreatCare's other services (nursing homes, dentists, medicines) will be explored as the partnership progresses."

Apparently the site was started in 2008

I don't remember them asking mners about this, considering its a 'partnership' and they're expecting us to provide the reviews and information. Having searched for the doctors in my area the site is inaccurate and lacking in information. Plus they are going to link this to mumsnet local apparently

Sure rate holidays/shops/products, even baby groups/soft plays etc etc but rating doctors who have no real right to reply due to confidentiality issues is insane. It is open to all kinds of abuse and will just end up providing misleading information to people when they are often at their most vunerable and least able to critically evaluate that information.

We have a system in place to complain about doctors and any other health care professional employed by the NHS. We have an organisation in place to help us access that complaint system and provide guidance (PALS). Its not like 'Iwantgreatcare' is the only option.

Plus clearly its not moderated well if there is a huge amount of out of date or just plain innacurate data on there (I found some on a very basic search of my local area) plus all the missing info.

This is not only a stupid idea but a potentially damaging one. There are a great many people out there with grudges for the stupidest of reasons or who are unable to always judge things rationally. The people running this website and website users have no way of telling who is who rendering the website useless.

I may sound reasonably rational and sensible (or so I hope) and I am - at the moment. I also suffer from amongst other things paranoid delusions. You have no way or determining this, and not a great chance of determining when something I say is rational and when it is not, not over a website any way.

I cannot see how this can be in any way useful , and very unfair that the people whom they are discussing cannot reply. Am also surprised mumsnet have gone into partnership with them.

Still waiting for a response from MNHQ...

Not heard of this website before bit it sounds rubbish and as a HCP I feel people should complain in the right way through appropriate channels as others have said. Putting reviews on this website will not change poor practice

I'm absoulutely stunned MN are involved in this. I hope they've limited their liability. If they thought Gina Ford was bad...

The website was started by the bloke that set up DoctorsNet. I have it on good authority that MN is not held in the highest esteem over there

vaccinations

The tie up seems bizarre in the extreme.

I wonder, have they nicked registration details from doctorsnet to form the initial database? Reason I ask is that my parents are both Drs. The one who posts on doctorsnet has a profile on IWGC, the one who doesn't, doesn't.

I'm also wondering if Apple know they stole their naming convention. I don't know if the lower case 'i' leading to a word is or can be copyrighted but it is certainly well known as an Apple 'thing'.

There are a lot of people who post both on mumsnet and dnuk.
The iwantgreatcare details arent from the dnuk database, as there are people on iwant who arent on dnuk, and people on dnuk who aren't in iwant.

I think it's a stupid idea as well. You can choose your GP but when it comes to speciality, you go to the consultant you are allocated to. It wouldn't occur to me to look for an oncologist on that database, because we don't have to shop around for specialists like they do in America, for instance.
As others have said, it could cause a lot of trouble, and has no place on here.

I am not at all with unmoderated public appraisal of medical professionals. Sure patient comments are useful but only as part of a whole range of indicators, such as (for hospitals for example) infection rates, return surgery rates, death rates of various specialities, c/secton rates, staffing problems and vacancies etc, etc.

So no, YADNBU. I support this 'campaign'

YANBU it is completely ridiculous. I was also shocked to see MN appeared to be endorsing this site. It is very similar to the ratemyteacher website which mostly seems to be a place where people can slag off teachers anonymously.

I am appalled that Mumsnet is working in partnership with iwantgreatcare.

I agree that patient feedback is an essential part of reforming and improving services for patients, but I feel very strongly that this website aims for the sensational and is very shoddily done.

If you, as patients, want to be able to "rate" your doctor, then use NHS Choices www.nhs.uk/ . This is a much fairer system - the pages are up-to-date and GP practices are notified when a comment is made so they have the right to respond. You will also be able to find out more about your GP practice, or others that you may want to sign up with instead.

I have worked with Health Professionals for many years and have seen how devastating unfounded allegations and rumours can be for the people involved. By all means there should be a right of reply for patients, but this website, iwantgreatcare, is not the answer.

I do not want to be part of a partnership with it.

Hello. And thanks to all who have brought this thread to our attention.

We'd like to reassure you all that we thought long and hard before entering into this partnership with iWantGreatCare - and spent a considerable amount of time asking them exactly the sort of questions you are asking here.

So, just to clear a few things up..

Doctors can posts responses to reviews - and do so regularly. You can see an example of that here

We're assured by iWantGreatCare that they update their database continuously in response to queries/new information about doctor's details. Obviously, it's incredibly important to them that their data is as up to date as possible - and they say they'd positively welcome mails from Mumsnetters pointing out inaccuracies. You can contact them here

sallysparrow157: we've spoken to iWantGreatCare about the examples you mention of retired/dead doctors and they've asked us specifically to ask you to mail them with more details, please.

With reference to worries about libellous/abusive comments, iWantGreatCare tell us they have "multiple systems in place to prevent libel, slander and abusive comments: every posting made is moderated and assessed ? not to prevent fair criticism of poor care, rather to protect doctors from malicious campaigns and unfair comment."

On a more general note, our main reason for entering into this partnership was to encourage Mumsnetters to enrich, enhance and get great value out of iWantGreatCare's database.

In the same way that we know Mumsnetters' individual experiences of parenting (and a whole load of other stuff!) can combine to offer other Mumsnetters the most incredibly informative, useful, wise and wide-ranging help and support, we're hoping that Mumsnetters' feedback on doctors round the country can combine to help other Mumsnetters choose the best doctors (GP, paediatrician, obstetrician, whatever) for themselves and their family - and, sometimes, maybe, help doctors identify where they perhaps could improve their patient relationships, too.

Obviously, the more reviews there are the better ? no one is suggesting that a single review of any one doctor (positive or negative) is useful. It's going to take a little while for the bigger picture to build.

But early results are looking encouraging: we know that since the IWGC/MN partnership was launched, thousands of MNers have searched iWantGreatCare's data - and hundreds of new reviews have already been added.

Crikey. I wouldn't be happy if MN got advertising from RateMyTeacher and I can't really see how this is any different.

HelenMumsnet Could you clarify whether they contact the doctor/hospital in question when a report has been made to allow them to respond?

I've searched their database. As soon as I saw the advert. To check that none of my relatives and friends were listed. I suspect many MNers did the same. Then I informed my friends and relatives of the sites existence so they could monitor it. So they searched it to check if their firends were listed.

How can they possibly say that doctors can respond. What are they supposed to say when they can't discuss their patients??????? When they accuse a doctor of being inattentive or not listening they are attacking their professionalism without giving the doctor any way to respond other than saying they were actually listening.

The database is stunningly inaccurate. I find it pretty outrageous that they are expecting mumsnetters and other members of the public to sort this out for them. I cant see any indication from the website that they are a charity or non-profit making, so IMO they should do their own basic research.

Having looked at the data I cant imagine where they got their information from.

IME (and from many of the threads I've read on here) this

'There is an effective complaints/feedback system'

is not true SallySparrow157

Also it would seem from the response from MNHQ that this

'there is no way for the doctor involved to respond.'

is also untrue.

I hope it will become a good resource for positive experiences.

@TheRealMBJ

HelenMumsnet Could you clarify whether they contact the doctor/hospital in question when a report has been made to allow them to respond?

We can certainly find out, TheRealBMJ. Although we can't promise a reply tonight. We'll get on it.

It is completely beneath MN to be associated with this kind of site which exists solely to create advertising revenue.

Does anyone remember being asked by MNHQ if we minded if MacDonald's was accepted as an advertiser on here?

Just sayin.

@ChaosTrulyReigns

Does anyone remember being asked by MNHQ if we minded if MacDonald's was accepted as an advertiser on here?

Just sayin.

We did ask you all, Chaos. See here

'I find it pretty outrageous that they are expecting mumsnetters and other members of the public to sort this out for them.'

Yup. They want you to create the database for them because they can't be bothered to pay the staff to do it. So they sit back and collect the ad revenue for a site they've done the bare minimum to set up.

How much are MN being paid for MNers to do their work for them and imput doctor's details?